[updated 5/16/2022]"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." —Thomas Jefferson
To jump ahead to the conclusion first:
The simple truth is that stripping people of their God-given right to be able to defend themselves is abusive, and no one in their right mind wants to be in an abusive relationship; that's what it all comes down to on an ethical level; supporting people's ability to defend themselves (from criminals or a tyrannical government) is actually a loving thing to do; Jesus commanded us to love, and abuse is the complete opposite of love, without any exceptions, so abusive control is actually never justifiable, no matter what crisis/emergency/tragedy happened or is happening. (And gun-free zones just make it easier for violent people to be violent, that's why shootings are oftentimes in those unconstitutional zones, because they go to places where they know people will be defenseless). If any place on Earth is to ever truly be a The Land of The Free, the nonsense idea that only government employees can be prepared to adequately defend themselves needs to be recognized as an oppressive superiority-complex (that also supports tyranny), it needs to be recognized as abusive, and therefore uniformly rejected as such.
If you are a government employee and you think to yourself "I don't think of myself as superior, and I'm not interested in committing genocide, I just want to make people safer," that's good, but ultimately you're working for a hierarchical chain-of-command institution, with people at the top of that chain-of-command that are invariably less ethical; once people in your position of power can disarm nonviolent people, what's to stop someone less ethical/sane than you from giving orders to someone in that position for very destructive purposes? And if the person won't comply with those orders, historically they're usually just fired and replaced with someone who will carry out those orders.
Likewise, if you're someone who thinks socialism is a great idea because you know of some socialist leader who you believe is a great person, you're ignoring the problem of establishing eternal positions of power occupied by transient humans, along with the fact that socialism is fundamentally abusive, treating people like the livestock of State employees.
The issue of weapons ownership isn't actually complicated once you zoom out, see the big picture, and focus in on the the key ethical principal that aggression/abuse is always wrong, no matter who does it, and no matter what else is happening in the world.
Supposedly Complex Issues are Actually Simple on an Ethical Level
After analyzing the issues of medical tyranny, police brutality and abortion in depth, I came to similar conclusions for each, even though those issues may seem very different on the surface; as I analyzed those issues more in depth, I realized that they share commonalities, they actually share the same core content:
One of the current presidential candidates suggested that the State should license guns and regulate them like cars, issuing gun permits based on their "level of destruction," and I know these kind of gun control measures will seem reasonable to a lot of people, but the only reason that they would seem reasonable is because of idolizing State employees, believing State employees are always superior humans; that is the belief in operation that is the foundation for all this "sensible" gun control reasoning.
That same candidate implied that mass surveillance of gun owners might be warranted, saying “We need to know who you are, what you’re doing, and why you have this arsenal.” This of course ignores the fact that we have no idea who most State employees are, what they're doing (especially with Black Ops, at secret military bases, CIA/FBI/NSA activities, etc.) or why they have the arsenals that they have (e.g., what invasions, coups, etc., are being planned). Again his perspective starts from State superiority, that is the given from which all the gun control ideas come from, its' all predicated on this belief that State employees are superior humans, which just isn't true, they're not super-human, they're humans like the rest of us, some behaving better than others, but all of them subject to the corrupting influence of unnatural power (which causes problems even when exercised with good intentions), so they're always more dangerous than those without that power.
I've noticed gun control advocates have been exercising another classic toxic personality behavior (in addition to the psychological projection already mentioned) in that they will change from one argument to the next and never admit that they were wrong with the previous one that they were just so passionate about moments earlier. For example, they will talk about suicides by guns as a reason for greater gun control, but restricting high-capacity magazines and military-style weapons wouldn't be relevant to gun suicides (they only use one bullet, usually from a handgun), and that suicide is not the fault of the gun (or any other weapon used, or rope, or high bridge/building, etc.), as a person who commits suicide is doing so not because of the existence of those objects but because of severe depression and desperation; when this is pointed out and their first gun control argument is shown to be nonsense, the gun control advocate, particularly of the politician variety, will switch to a second argument about State law itself (in this case gun control law), saying "Well if we pass these laws you're expected to obey them," as if the law is always Divine, and should never be questioned or rejected no matter what it is, because it comes from “legitimate representatives” (whether you voted for any of them or not, so the deeper belief being that the majority of any small group, e.g., voters, always hold the correct and most ethical view, which is obviously a false belief, along with the fact that most State employees aren't even elected anyway, so the perspective is even more absurd); they say “without the rule of law there would be chaos, so we should follow the law even if we don't like it,” yet always obeying laws doesn't guarantee a better world at all, if the laws are bad, all that guarantees is continuous injustice/tyranny/oppression. Right now (September 2019) politicians are saying “If we ban gun ownership, you should obey, because obeying whatever the law is is always the morally right thing to do.” The problem with that premise, as I just pointed out, is that it's false, as countless historical (and current) examples can demonstrate. Really what they're pushing is nothing more than idolization/worship of the State, without any solid ethical foundation; it's “Because I say so” morality which is no real morality, it's saying “Whatever we tell you to do, you should do, because I am your master, and one should always obey their master.” The Non-Aggression Principle, however, is an actual solid ethical foundation, and gun control laws against non-violent people are a form of aggression; so they are doing evil in the name of the good (“War is Peace”), and that's the same old dynamic that has been going on for centuries all the way back to the original “fall of Man,” and is basically seeing the devil at work in the world (the devil is a deceiver, and the main way he deceives is by convincing people that evil is actually good).
Safety is usually the reason given to justify tyranny, and many people think it's reasonable and best for there to be some balance between the two, that we have to have some of the latter in order to preserve the former, but aggression never actually helps anything, in any situation.
Restricting gun ownership, through State background checks and "Red Flag" Laws, etc., is a preemptive attack on gun owners, considering them guilty before they have actually committed an aggressive act with the gun; preemptive attack is never legitimate, it is always an act of aggression itself, supposedly to prevent aggression, in other words it is the very evil that it is supposedly preventing.
Politicians are now saying the aggressive privacy-invasion of surveillance of gun owners is justifiable, again based on the supposed legitimacy of preemptive attack, their own superiority, and the flawlessness of their "Red Flags." Red Flag Laws are a way for the State to aggressively persecute people for "pre-crimes," coercing the population into conformist obedience and pushing fear-thy-neighbor suspicion and snitch culture. Just as the vague State instruction (repeated on public transportation speakers over and over, and plastered on State posters all over the place) to "report suspicious activity" is overused and misused, people are now encouraged to report gun owners doing anything "questionable" in order to have their guns taken away, not because they've actually done anything violent, but because they may do something violent; this informing can of course also be done by people who are mentally unwell themselves, or who just want to aggressively mess with the life of someone they don't like (see Case Study 10 - Gun Control in the book Snitch Culture by Jim Redden), or just to push gun confiscation (i.e., a State monopoly on gun ownership) because that's what they believe will make the world a better place. Speaking of the mentally unwell, Red Flag Laws are giving the psychiatric industry authority (through the State) to label people with various "disorders" that will supposedly justify preemptive attack/aggression against them, e.g., made-up disorders including the "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" which paints disobedience and defiance as inherently bad things, as if there is never any good reason to disobey an authority figure. This is leading to a police-state dystopia scenario wherein you can be labeled as a threat or mentally unwell by aggressive people who are mentally unwell themselves, and this labeling can lead to being disarmed, and possibly imprisoned and drugged against your will (measures politicians have talked openly about). And that worst-case scenario is where the slippery slope leads once preemptive attack and other forms of aggression are accepted as legitimate, along with the acceptance of the superiority of State employees to carry it out; it all rests on those ideas, and so that's where the focus should be for anyone who really wants to speak out against this tyranny effectively.
Again, these gun control laws are wrong because they are based on the assumption that the restrictions will be fair and just, and never arbitrary or over-extended, say to people who just don't believe in the legitimacy of automatic State authority and superiority. To say State employees (and/or psychiatrists) should have the power to evaluate who can have guns and who shouldn't, assumes that those people are superior to whoever they are evaluating, and don't need to be evaluated themselves; this premise that once someone becomes a State employee or psychiatrist they somehow become perfectly ethical and wise (or made to be so by their supposedly perfect law or education that they supposedly follow perfectly), is a premise that isn't given any analysis by statists or the propaganda wings of the state (mainstream news media and entertainment). If you advocate stricter background checks, gun type restrictions (e.g., against so-called "assault weapons"), gun storage restrictions, and magazine capacity restrictions, along with gun registration (a privacy invasion, and precursor to confiscation) etc., you're assuming that the State officials carrying out this control over others are themselves guaranteed angelic (or are made angelic by a perfect law and justice system) and are acting on perfect and complete information, and would never deem someone a criminal incorrectly, or do so just to be able to control them, even though history is full of examples of those very things happening (which should not be surprising because of the never-ending problems with bureaucracy, and the corrupting influence of unnatural power on the human mind). A cursory background check on States, who deem themselves worthy of evaluating the background of other people to see if they are trustworthy with firearms, leads to nothing less than a mountain range of hypocrisy: genocide (often directly following gun confiscations), war atrocities, state-sponsored terrorism, police brutality, along with the racist roots of gun control, all of which clarify what the truth is behind the political theater for "public safety" for anyone not blinded by idolatry of the State.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. applied for a gun permit in 1956, after having his house bombed. The State of Alabama however did not grant him this permit, and MLK, Jr. was later called “The nation's most notorious liar” by the head of the FBI, J. Hoover. This highlights the falsehood of the automatic superiority of state officials, the falsehood of the premise that State actors are always superior actors. One shouldn't be surprised by the countless examples of corruption and misuse of power, that is standard, because unnatural power invariably corrupts the human mind; libertarians and anarchists understand this, but most people are turned away from this clear understanding of reality by constant conditioning/indoctrination/deception aimed at convincing them that States and institutions are good and necessary, even the pinnacle achievements of civilization, what distinguishes us from “primitives.”
I believe many people become police officers and soldiers because they want to do good in the world, they want to be a warrior against evil in the world, and that is a very admirable intention; the outside the box perspective to consider is that men and women can still do that in their communities without being a part of the State institution with its corrupting power and unjust origins which actually always end up (via karmic law) undermining those very admirable pro-justice efforts; the State's unethical foundation of aggression/extortion makes justice-making via that institution ultimately an impossibility because God did not create a reality that allows for evil to do good, as we can all observe. I know this will seem to be naïve utopianism or religiosity to many people, but rather than getting lost on that tangent, we can clarify what the truth of the issue is by again returning to the key point that there is nothing that actually ensures that State-employees having a monopoly on weapons actually makes us safer overall, especially when you factor in all of history that shows it's not safer (research state-sponsored terrorism, military atrocities, and democide if you are somehow unaware of this fact), along with the issue of power corrupting the human mind, which makes it additionally less safe for us to have the people in power have a monopoly on weapon ownership.
The big picture of the gun debate, zooming out from all the political theater, is that here on Earth we have some humans telling other humans “I can have weapons and you can't, just because I say so” and the person saying that is also thereby saying “I am superior to you,” and even “ I am your master, you are my slave.” This is lost in the debate of course when the media emotionally manipulates the population repeatedly into feeling sad and disgusted with shootings for the purpose of accepting the "solution" of less rights/freedom, which is really pushing a master & slave relationship, based on zero historical precedence, current reality, or sound logic, or sound morality.
Mass-shootings in gun-free zones have been used to push for more "common sense" gun control, but this somehow expects the average person to turn off their own common sense to recognize that most of these shootings have occurred in gun-free zones, and that if they were in a gun-free zone during a mass-shooting they would absolutely be safer if they had their own gun to defend themselves and others nearby with (and this is exactly what has happened many times, wherein deranged shooters were stopped by a non-State employee who had a gun, often not even needing to use it, showing it was sufficient to stop the shooter). Even though these type of shootings are exceedingly rare (despite the way the media makes it seem), if you are concerned about possibly encountering such an event, a rational thought would be "Maybe I should go to a nearby gun shop, inquire about what gun would be best for me, buy one after extensive research, and then take handgun training courses/lessons so that I could defend myself and others if I were ever to encounter such a situation." This true common sense is rarely heard through media outlets. After each shooting by a pharmaceutical-taking mentally and emotionally unwell person, the media amplifies the voices calling for us to “Do Something,” and that “something” is invariably the State having more control over guns, even though an armed populace is the greatest deterrent of crime; the TV news segments, newspaper and online articles portray gun ownership as an irresponsible thing, and often, especially by gun control advocates, with strong suggestions that gun ownership is just a byproduct of "toxic masculinity," or "backward" country culture; this perspective often includes an eye-roll comment about who they call "Get off my lawn!" conservatives, who they make out to be ignorant fools that just stubbornly refuse to join the rest of civilized society [side note: ridiculing the statement "Get off my lawn" also goes against the totally legitimate complaint of someone trespassing on your property; this ridicule often comes from someone who also believes in the truly backward communist ideology that all private property should be abolished]. Similarly many leftists say that the "Don't Tread On Me" written on the Gadsden flag is backward and even somehow "racist" in an attempt to manipulate people into accepting more gun control by villainizing those who are against it. But when you strip away all the superficialities about personalities and lifestyles to get to the bare bones ethics underneath the banter, the intelligent and independent thinker can see that a "metrosexual" liberal in this debate would be on the wrong side, while a "redneck" conservative would be on the correct side (yet in a larger context both are wrong for being statists). History and current events keep pointing us to the best way to go: no preemptive attack on anyone (remember that includes red flag laws and gun-free zones, both of which aggressively disarm nonviolent people), no rulers defining who is "possibly dangerous" or "mentally ill" while being exempt from those very same labels, and instead a society of millions of armed individuals and small independent community militias (i.e., groups of those individuals who train together and are ready to act together if need be) that aren't under the command of corrupt politicians.
Again, on just a practical and factual level, the key point that many gun right advocates make that is completely ignored by gun control advocates is that if someone breaks into your home or tries to kidnap you or your child on the street, calling 911 will not help at all since by the time they are arrive the harm will already have been committed; and this is true for helping others around you too, again if say there's some drugged-up guy who starts shooting people in a public place and there's no cops there, only a person that is armed could stop that before more innocent people were killed. This common sense point isn't just theoretically logical, but has been played out countless times in the real world to this day when home-invaders are stopped, rapes are prevented, and mass-shooters are stopped in their tracks, all of which often occur without even needing to fire a shot, just showing the gun is enough to stop the aggressor (e.g., the would-be rapist runs away, or in the mass-shooter cases they often shoot themselves once they see someone else with a gun). I know the idea that more people being armed is safer than less seems counter-intuitive to people who were born and raised in cities where there are no gun-shops and no gun-ranges, no common training courses on firearm use; but the truth is having all the powerful weapons only in the hands of the people that insist on extorting and controlling you isn't actually safer! You're vulnerable to tyranny, and your vulnerable to people who acquire firearms illegally; it's a double-subtraction of safety, yet the powers-that-be push it as if it's progress for humanity; they are fundamentally deceptive abusers, trying to device you into making it easier for them to abuse you more. But again, this will sound outrageous to anybody who has lived in a social and media bubble that never voices a view like this, that never highlights the fact the leader of violence in human history has been States, convinced that their "new" social(ist)-utopia is a reality, and conformity to it is the way forward, just do what you're told and everything will be just fine...
Gun Right Organizations
- All involve the possible deaths of innocent people.
- All are considered by many people to be extremely complicated issues that can have no definite and final answer as to what the best resolution is.
- All involve the The Non-Aggression Principle, Preemptive Attack and False Superiority, none of which are usually mentioned at all in the debates over these issues.
[Update: Interestingly, and supporting my analysis that these apparently separate issues are actually related in a deeper way, we've recently had the particular government officials pushing medical tyranny (the CDC) trying to expand their power by calling gun violence a "health issue" and by doing supposedly justify their desire to disarm nonviolent people through preemptive attack. Rather than digress in further detail on that news I will just leave you with a link to an article on that here and then continue with the ethics of gun control: https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/content/no-doctor-should-prescribe-gun-control/ ]
Definition of terms:
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is an ethical stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate and wrong; aggression being the initiation of violence against a person or their property. This of course includes violent force initiated/started through hitting someone physically, but also includes privacy invasion and blocking access to the means of preserving life and liberty. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle is not against the use of force in self-defense.
Preemptive Attack is a form of aggression that is feigned to be done as self-defense, i.e., the person committing the aggression says it's necessary to prevent aggression from occurring; this is illegitimate because aggression could be justified based solely on suspicion or rumors, and can obviously be used by those that want an excuse to commit aggression against someone.
False Superiority is simply the stance of superiority over others in some way that isn't actually true.
The NAP is the factor of greatest importance when analyzing these issues because preemptive attack is a form of aggression, and false superiority is a serious problem when it is the basis for aggression; in other words whether we're talking about police brutality, abortion or gun control, the main problem is aggression being committed, therefore the NAP is paramount as the clarifying solution to that problem.
Similar to recognizing certain key points concerning aggression with medical tyranny and abortion, the key ethical points repeatedly sidelined by advocates of medical tyranny and abortion, I've come to see there are three key points that are being continuously sidelined by gun control advocates in the gun control debate, and these key points resolve the confusion over what is the correct concerning State control of firearms, and how best to deal with violent events occurring in society involving firearms.
- Key point #1: Automatic All-Inclusive State Superiority Is Not True or Rational
A related argument for gun control that is also completely bunk is one that has been repeated by socialist-minded politicians and people alike: "The government has a military and nuclear weapons, so you couldn't win a fight against them anyway." This is essentially saying that you should just just submit to tyranny, they tyranny is apparently irrelevant to the people making this argument), and whatever weapons you do have to defend yourself should be stripped from you! It's like like telling someone being physically abused they should hand over the one knife they have to defend themselves because it's no match for the many other weapons the abuser has! What twisted logic! It's saying your chance of success is only 5%, so therefore you should willingly make it 0%! That's sick-mindedness being presented as sound reasoning; how anyone could go along with that and think it's legitimate is beyond me.
One of the current presidential candidates suggested that the State should license guns and regulate them like cars, issuing gun permits based on their "level of destruction," and I know these kind of gun control measures will seem reasonable to a lot of people, but the only reason that they would seem reasonable is because of idolizing State employees, believing State employees are always superior humans; that is the belief in operation that is the foundation for all this "sensible" gun control reasoning.
That same candidate implied that mass surveillance of gun owners might be warranted, saying “We need to know who you are, what you’re doing, and why you have this arsenal.” This of course ignores the fact that we have no idea who most State employees are, what they're doing (especially with Black Ops, at secret military bases, CIA/FBI/NSA activities, etc.) or why they have the arsenals that they have (e.g., what invasions, coups, etc., are being planned). Again his perspective starts from State superiority, that is the given from which all the gun control ideas come from, its' all predicated on this belief that State employees are superior humans, which just isn't true, they're not super-human, they're humans like the rest of us, some behaving better than others, but all of them subject to the corrupting influence of unnatural power (which causes problems even when exercised with good intentions), so they're always more dangerous than those without that power.
I've noticed gun control advocates have been exercising another classic toxic personality behavior (in addition to the psychological projection already mentioned) in that they will change from one argument to the next and never admit that they were wrong with the previous one that they were just so passionate about moments earlier. For example, they will talk about suicides by guns as a reason for greater gun control, but restricting high-capacity magazines and military-style weapons wouldn't be relevant to gun suicides (they only use one bullet, usually from a handgun), and that suicide is not the fault of the gun (or any other weapon used, or rope, or high bridge/building, etc.), as a person who commits suicide is doing so not because of the existence of those objects but because of severe depression and desperation; when this is pointed out and their first gun control argument is shown to be nonsense, the gun control advocate, particularly of the politician variety, will switch to a second argument about State law itself (in this case gun control law), saying "Well if we pass these laws you're expected to obey them," as if the law is always Divine, and should never be questioned or rejected no matter what it is, because it comes from “legitimate representatives” (whether you voted for any of them or not, so the deeper belief being that the majority of any small group, e.g., voters, always hold the correct and most ethical view, which is obviously a false belief, along with the fact that most State employees aren't even elected anyway, so the perspective is even more absurd); they say “without the rule of law there would be chaos, so we should follow the law even if we don't like it,” yet always obeying laws doesn't guarantee a better world at all, if the laws are bad, all that guarantees is continuous injustice/tyranny/oppression. Right now (September 2019) politicians are saying “If we ban gun ownership, you should obey, because obeying whatever the law is is always the morally right thing to do.” The problem with that premise, as I just pointed out, is that it's false, as countless historical (and current) examples can demonstrate. Really what they're pushing is nothing more than idolization/worship of the State, without any solid ethical foundation; it's “Because I say so” morality which is no real morality, it's saying “Whatever we tell you to do, you should do, because I am your master, and one should always obey their master.” The Non-Aggression Principle, however, is an actual solid ethical foundation, and gun control laws against non-violent people are a form of aggression; so they are doing evil in the name of the good (“War is Peace”), and that's the same old dynamic that has been going on for centuries all the way back to the original “fall of Man,” and is basically seeing the devil at work in the world (the devil is a deceiver, and the main way he deceives is by convincing people that evil is actually good).
Safety is usually the reason given to justify tyranny, and many people think it's reasonable and best for there to be some balance between the two, that we have to have some of the latter in order to preserve the former, but aggression never actually helps anything, in any situation.
The main blunder with gun control is the same blunder at the core of medical mandates: accepting preemptive attack by "authority," which accepts a form of violence as an exception the nonviolence rule, and accepts the flawlessness of whoever the "authority" figure is. Additionally it's just plain dumb to ignore the fact that the common denominator for mass-shootings is that they occur in "gun-free zones" (created by the State) and that the violent people are on SSRI pharmaceutical drugs; what do you know, what's making it worse is the State and Big Pharma, just like with medical mandates! Hmm, maybe we would better off without these idols and rulers? Again the blunder is thinking that it's "reasonable" to let some people have a right to be aggressive/abusive/violent (e.g., disarming nonviolent people, or pushing drugs on whole populations), and to let those same people define who is a threat (red-flag laws), and who is "mentally ill," as if those doing that defining couldn't be both! History shows that's often the case!
Gun control advocates are pushing multi-layered nonsense (“Gun-free zones are safer!” “The State having all the guns is safer!” “You not being able to defend yourself is safer!”), forming a cake of tyranny, and expect us to eat it because they say it's good for us and we're a crazy terrorist if we don't agree (again with the psychological projection, since forcefully disarming nonviolent people so that they can be more easily victimized is crazy and a form of domestic terrorism itself); you have to be confident in your own ability to think critically and discern right from wrong in order to not be swayed by this, which can be a bit difficult, especially when dealing with someone being nasty/accusatory/hysterical (e.g., accusing you of being a racist/sexist/Nazi/terrorist for no good reason at all, while they, again in classic toxic personality/possessed fashion, actually demonstrate racist/sexist/fascist/aggressive tendencies themselves), but then that behavior should just remind you that they have no sound argument because if they did they wouldn't need to act nasty/hysterical to distract from their lack of rationality and sound morality.
If you don't believe that aggression is always bad, you are either thinking of actions that aren't actually aggression (e.g., force in self-defense) or you just don't understand that aggression really is an evil. If you don't believe that abortion, gun control and surveillance are each acts of aggression, then you don't understand what aggression is: the initiation of violence. Killing an in-utero baby is an act of violence. Taking away people's ability to defend themselves is an act of violence. Invading someone's privacy is an act of violence. The crucial truth is always simple and sharp, cutting through whatever web of lies the Enemy tries to throw on people.
If you don't believe that aggression is always bad, you are either thinking of actions that aren't actually aggression (e.g., force in self-defense) or you just don't understand that aggression really is an evil. If you don't believe that abortion, gun control and surveillance are each acts of aggression, then you don't understand what aggression is: the initiation of violence. Killing an in-utero baby is an act of violence. Taking away people's ability to defend themselves is an act of violence. Invading someone's privacy is an act of violence. The crucial truth is always simple and sharp, cutting through whatever web of lies the Enemy tries to throw on people.
- Key point #2: Preemptive Attack = Aggression = Evil
Restricting gun ownership, through State background checks and "Red Flag" Laws, etc., is a preemptive attack on gun owners, considering them guilty before they have actually committed an aggressive act with the gun; preemptive attack is never legitimate, it is always an act of aggression itself, supposedly to prevent aggression, in other words it is the very evil that it is supposedly preventing.
Politicians are now saying the aggressive privacy-invasion of surveillance of gun owners is justifiable, again based on the supposed legitimacy of preemptive attack, their own superiority, and the flawlessness of their "Red Flags." Red Flag Laws are a way for the State to aggressively persecute people for "pre-crimes," coercing the population into conformist obedience and pushing fear-thy-neighbor suspicion and snitch culture. Just as the vague State instruction (repeated on public transportation speakers over and over, and plastered on State posters all over the place) to "report suspicious activity" is overused and misused, people are now encouraged to report gun owners doing anything "questionable" in order to have their guns taken away, not because they've actually done anything violent, but because they may do something violent; this informing can of course also be done by people who are mentally unwell themselves, or who just want to aggressively mess with the life of someone they don't like (see Case Study 10 - Gun Control in the book Snitch Culture by Jim Redden), or just to push gun confiscation (i.e., a State monopoly on gun ownership) because that's what they believe will make the world a better place. Speaking of the mentally unwell, Red Flag Laws are giving the psychiatric industry authority (through the State) to label people with various "disorders" that will supposedly justify preemptive attack/aggression against them, e.g., made-up disorders including the "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" which paints disobedience and defiance as inherently bad things, as if there is never any good reason to disobey an authority figure. This is leading to a police-state dystopia scenario wherein you can be labeled as a threat or mentally unwell by aggressive people who are mentally unwell themselves, and this labeling can lead to being disarmed, and possibly imprisoned and drugged against your will (measures politicians have talked openly about). And that worst-case scenario is where the slippery slope leads once preemptive attack and other forms of aggression are accepted as legitimate, along with the acceptance of the superiority of State employees to carry it out; it all rests on those ideas, and so that's where the focus should be for anyone who really wants to speak out against this tyranny effectively.
The recent April 2020 headline of "Armed supporters stand guard outside Dallas salon defying COVID rules" is being buried in search results and changed, just try and find the story with that exact headline now, and why would the powers-that-be suppress that story? Because, like searches on the real Black Panthers and the Vietnam War atrocity documentary 'Winter Soldier' being replaced in online search results with a propaganda entertainment movie with the same name, this recent news is dangerous to the controllers, the "elite" that see people as theirs to manage, deceive and exploit.
Armed people defending their neighbors from the police? That's a big no-no. On a deeper level than simply that disarmed people are easier to control, this has to do with the attack on the expression of real core natural/divine masculinity; that is attacked most vehemently because it's what would undermine this whole system of control that depends on the lack of real men in the population; it's what the world most needs for true social-justice, so the control-freaks of the world and their programmed spokespeople try to shout it down as "toxic," discredit and distort/delete masculinity as quickly as they can whenever it manifests. The armed men guarding the woman in the house threatened with arrest are expressing the core/natural/divine masculine trait of a protector, defending a woman from aggression; a preemptive attack is a form of aggression, in this case a preemptive attack against her by police for operating her small business to “keep people safe and healthy.” The heathen rage “pubic health! public safety! public health! public safety!” but these men stand unmoved because they recognize that as a false morality, violating the inalienable rights of someone who hasn't actually harmed anybody. “Maybe/Probably/Possibly could do harm” is not at all an ethically sound justification to commit violence against someone (violence like arresting a woman, kidnapping her at gunpoint and putting her in a cage); in fact if that premise is widely accepted it can quickly lead to many more and increasingly violent and totalitarian preemptive attacks, always in the name of “safety and the greater good,” the end-game being a complete police-state, and even genocide. When the premise is allowed to operate by governing institutions they run with it; if you give them an inch they'll take a mile, and that's why it's crucial to reject it before it really gets out of hand, just as these men are doing. The statists go on a conceited field-day of slanderous commentary, saying these men are wrong and irrational, but the men can still stand tall because they have a firm understanding of good & evil, they know violating someone's God-given rights via preemptive attack is not legitimate, and is an extremely dangerous premise and precedent to have set for these human farmers called officials; what these defenders are doing is 100% good and rational, and if you don't get that, if you even think the issue is “more complicated,” because “both sides are making valid points,” if you think a conclusion that it's “not so black & white” is “more reasonable and intelligent,” you're wrong, and, if you're a male, your moral confusion that does not fully embrace the Non-Aggression Principle is actually the weak masculinity that has made the world such an unnatural and crappy place to live in; by you not seeing any clear and solid wrong to defend against, they have undermined your masculine core and purpose, they have brainwashed you into believing you're an intelligent man when really you've been made into a foolish boy, letting these control freaks have their way with your wives, daughters, friends and neighbors, treating them like livestock, while you just watch and obey.
Why is it okay for a man in uniform to carry a pistol but not okay for a man not in uniform? Answer: *statism,* based on a false superiority complex which officials indoctrinate their citizens <cough>livestock<cough> with via state-run education, political theater, & propaganda.
Again, these gun control laws are wrong because they are based on the assumption that the restrictions will be fair and just, and never arbitrary or over-extended, say to people who just don't believe in the legitimacy of automatic State authority and superiority. To say State employees (and/or psychiatrists) should have the power to evaluate who can have guns and who shouldn't, assumes that those people are superior to whoever they are evaluating, and don't need to be evaluated themselves; this premise that once someone becomes a State employee or psychiatrist they somehow become perfectly ethical and wise (or made to be so by their supposedly perfect law or education that they supposedly follow perfectly), is a premise that isn't given any analysis by statists or the propaganda wings of the state (mainstream news media and entertainment). If you advocate stricter background checks, gun type restrictions (e.g., against so-called "assault weapons"), gun storage restrictions, and magazine capacity restrictions, along with gun registration (a privacy invasion, and precursor to confiscation) etc., you're assuming that the State officials carrying out this control over others are themselves guaranteed angelic (or are made angelic by a perfect law and justice system) and are acting on perfect and complete information, and would never deem someone a criminal incorrectly, or do so just to be able to control them, even though history is full of examples of those very things happening (which should not be surprising because of the never-ending problems with bureaucracy, and the corrupting influence of unnatural power on the human mind). A cursory background check on States, who deem themselves worthy of evaluating the background of other people to see if they are trustworthy with firearms, leads to nothing less than a mountain range of hypocrisy: genocide (often directly following gun confiscations), war atrocities, state-sponsored terrorism, police brutality, along with the racist roots of gun control, all of which clarify what the truth is behind the political theater for "public safety" for anyone not blinded by idolatry of the State.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. applied for a gun permit in 1956, after having his house bombed. The State of Alabama however did not grant him this permit, and MLK, Jr. was later called “The nation's most notorious liar” by the head of the FBI, J. Hoover. This highlights the falsehood of the automatic superiority of state officials, the falsehood of the premise that State actors are always superior actors. One shouldn't be surprised by the countless examples of corruption and misuse of power, that is standard, because unnatural power invariably corrupts the human mind; libertarians and anarchists understand this, but most people are turned away from this clear understanding of reality by constant conditioning/indoctrination/deception aimed at convincing them that States and institutions are good and necessary, even the pinnacle achievements of civilization, what distinguishes us from “primitives.”
I believe many people become police officers and soldiers because they want to do good in the world, they want to be a warrior against evil in the world, and that is a very admirable intention; the outside the box perspective to consider is that men and women can still do that in their communities without being a part of the State institution with its corrupting power and unjust origins which actually always end up (via karmic law) undermining those very admirable pro-justice efforts; the State's unethical foundation of aggression/extortion makes justice-making via that institution ultimately an impossibility because God did not create a reality that allows for evil to do good, as we can all observe. I know this will seem to be naïve utopianism or religiosity to many people, but rather than getting lost on that tangent, we can clarify what the truth of the issue is by again returning to the key point that there is nothing that actually ensures that State-employees having a monopoly on weapons actually makes us safer overall, especially when you factor in all of history that shows it's not safer (research state-sponsored terrorism, military atrocities, and democide if you are somehow unaware of this fact), along with the issue of power corrupting the human mind, which makes it additionally less safe for us to have the people in power have a monopoly on weapon ownership.
The big picture of the gun debate, zooming out from all the political theater, is that here on Earth we have some humans telling other humans “I can have weapons and you can't, just because I say so” and the person saying that is also thereby saying “I am superior to you,” and even “ I am your master, you are my slave.” This is lost in the debate of course when the media emotionally manipulates the population repeatedly into feeling sad and disgusted with shootings for the purpose of accepting the "solution" of less rights/freedom, which is really pushing a master & slave relationship, based on zero historical precedence, current reality, or sound logic, or sound morality.
- Key Point #3: Self-Defense is Good
Mass-shootings in gun-free zones have been used to push for more "common sense" gun control, but this somehow expects the average person to turn off their own common sense to recognize that most of these shootings have occurred in gun-free zones, and that if they were in a gun-free zone during a mass-shooting they would absolutely be safer if they had their own gun to defend themselves and others nearby with (and this is exactly what has happened many times, wherein deranged shooters were stopped by a non-State employee who had a gun, often not even needing to use it, showing it was sufficient to stop the shooter). Even though these type of shootings are exceedingly rare (despite the way the media makes it seem), if you are concerned about possibly encountering such an event, a rational thought would be "Maybe I should go to a nearby gun shop, inquire about what gun would be best for me, buy one after extensive research, and then take handgun training courses/lessons so that I could defend myself and others if I were ever to encounter such a situation." This true common sense is rarely heard through media outlets. After each shooting by a pharmaceutical-taking mentally and emotionally unwell person, the media amplifies the voices calling for us to “Do Something,” and that “something” is invariably the State having more control over guns, even though an armed populace is the greatest deterrent of crime; the TV news segments, newspaper and online articles portray gun ownership as an irresponsible thing, and often, especially by gun control advocates, with strong suggestions that gun ownership is just a byproduct of "toxic masculinity," or "backward" country culture; this perspective often includes an eye-roll comment about who they call "Get off my lawn!" conservatives, who they make out to be ignorant fools that just stubbornly refuse to join the rest of civilized society [side note: ridiculing the statement "Get off my lawn" also goes against the totally legitimate complaint of someone trespassing on your property; this ridicule often comes from someone who also believes in the truly backward communist ideology that all private property should be abolished]. Similarly many leftists say that the "Don't Tread On Me" written on the Gadsden flag is backward and even somehow "racist" in an attempt to manipulate people into accepting more gun control by villainizing those who are against it. But when you strip away all the superficialities about personalities and lifestyles to get to the bare bones ethics underneath the banter, the intelligent and independent thinker can see that a "metrosexual" liberal in this debate would be on the wrong side, while a "redneck" conservative would be on the correct side (yet in a larger context both are wrong for being statists). History and current events keep pointing us to the best way to go: no preemptive attack on anyone (remember that includes red flag laws and gun-free zones, both of which aggressively disarm nonviolent people), no rulers defining who is "possibly dangerous" or "mentally ill" while being exempt from those very same labels, and instead a society of millions of armed individuals and small independent community militias (i.e., groups of those individuals who train together and are ready to act together if need be) that aren't under the command of corrupt politicians.
Again, on just a practical and factual level, the key point that many gun right advocates make that is completely ignored by gun control advocates is that if someone breaks into your home or tries to kidnap you or your child on the street, calling 911 will not help at all since by the time they are arrive the harm will already have been committed; and this is true for helping others around you too, again if say there's some drugged-up guy who starts shooting people in a public place and there's no cops there, only a person that is armed could stop that before more innocent people were killed. This common sense point isn't just theoretically logical, but has been played out countless times in the real world to this day when home-invaders are stopped, rapes are prevented, and mass-shooters are stopped in their tracks, all of which often occur without even needing to fire a shot, just showing the gun is enough to stop the aggressor (e.g., the would-be rapist runs away, or in the mass-shooter cases they often shoot themselves once they see someone else with a gun). I know the idea that more people being armed is safer than less seems counter-intuitive to people who were born and raised in cities where there are no gun-shops and no gun-ranges, no common training courses on firearm use; but the truth is having all the powerful weapons only in the hands of the people that insist on extorting and controlling you isn't actually safer! You're vulnerable to tyranny, and your vulnerable to people who acquire firearms illegally; it's a double-subtraction of safety, yet the powers-that-be push it as if it's progress for humanity; they are fundamentally deceptive abusers, trying to device you into making it easier for them to abuse you more. But again, this will sound outrageous to anybody who has lived in a social and media bubble that never voices a view like this, that never highlights the fact the leader of violence in human history has been States, convinced that their "new" social(ist)-utopia is a reality, and conformity to it is the way forward, just do what you're told and everything will be just fine...
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
Conclusion
Remember, we aren't given the right to carry guns by the Second Amendment of the Constitution or in any other way by the State, even though you'll here cops and politicians talk about it as a "privilege" (just like our "privilege" to be able to drive a car), it's a right we are actually born with; again, it is the bunk premise of automatic State employee superiority, that supposedly authorizes them to give and take away natural God-given rights, that is really the main thing in operation with gun control, and that main thing is baseless. The right to carry a weapon for defense comes from a Creator who values freedom, love of others and self-love; freedom, love of others and self-love logically includes being able to have weapons, of whatever sort you find necessary, for the purpose of self-defense and to defend others near you. Trying to take away that right is an act of aggression by people who believe they are superior from those that they want to control, and they do this in the name of safety via a preemptive attack; identifying these components of the gun control agenda (Automatic Superiority & Aggression/Preemptive Attack) reveals what the right and wrong in this issue really is, it gets through all the propaganda to reveal the lies, irrationality and immorality at its core masquerading as a vehicle for social-justice. It's really that simple, despite all the propaganda trying to convince you otherwise.
It all comes down to the Non Aggression Principle. The aggression of gun control over nonviolent people is coming from an institution which depends on aggression just to exist and be in operation (automatic State citizenship/subservience just for being born on the Earth, mandatory taxation/extortion); it's violence on top of violence masquerading as "civilized society. " The truth is there are zero times when aggression is actually a good thing, and trying to make the world a better place through aggression never actually works out, as you can observe today and all throughout history, it's a natural law of Creation, and it's about time humanity fully woke up to it.
Closing Comment
So yes, you absolutely have a natural right to own and carry a weapon to use for self-defense. This does not mean however that gun ownership and use should be taken lightly at all; training on correct use of your firearm (i.e., how to use and store the gun itself safely, and also what scenarios actually justify shooting someone and which do not), should be sought out and taken by all gun owners; if you're considering owning a gun, learn the Universal Firearm Safety Rules, do a search for firearm classes in your area, ask questions at local gun shops, and check this directory: https://www.usacarry.com/directory/category/firearm-instructors/
Gun Right Documentaries
Gun Right Logic
- A person usually needs a weapon of equal capability to that of the attacker's weapon in order to defend themselves effectively.
- Criminals have guns.
- Therefore it's rational to have a gun in case a criminal attacks you or others nearby you with a gun. (Owning a knife & gun isn't "glorifying violence," it's being prepared to adequately defend yourself against violence committed using those weapons.)
~~~
- People often call police at a shooting because they don't have guns to use for defense, but the police do.
- Police can't arrive soon enough for most attacks, which are over in less than a minute.
- Therefore it's rational to have a gun in case a criminal attacks you or others nearby you with a gun.
~~~
- State employees have historically misused firearms in a criminal way.
- If State employees had a monopoly on firearms, there would be no way for individuals and communities to defend themselves against this misuse of firearms by State employees.
- Therefore it's rational to have a gun in case a criminal/State employee attacks you or others nearby you with a gun.
Conclusion
Remember, we aren't given the right to carry guns by the Second Amendment of the Constitution or in any other way by the State, even though you'll here cops and politicians talk about it as a "privilege" (just like our "privilege" to be able to drive a car), it's a right we are actually born with; again, it is the bunk premise of automatic State employee superiority, that supposedly authorizes them to give and take away natural God-given rights, that is really the main thing in operation with gun control, and that main thing is baseless. The right to carry a weapon for defense comes from a Creator who values freedom, love of others and self-love; freedom, love of others and self-love logically includes being able to have weapons, of whatever sort you find necessary, for the purpose of self-defense and to defend others near you. Trying to take away that right is an act of aggression by people who believe they are superior from those that they want to control, and they do this in the name of safety via a preemptive attack; identifying these components of the gun control agenda (Automatic Superiority & Aggression/Preemptive Attack) reveals what the right and wrong in this issue really is, it gets through all the propaganda to reveal the lies, irrationality and immorality at its core masquerading as a vehicle for social-justice. It's really that simple, despite all the propaganda trying to convince you otherwise.
It all comes down to the Non Aggression Principle. The aggression of gun control over nonviolent people is coming from an institution which depends on aggression just to exist and be in operation (automatic State citizenship/subservience just for being born on the Earth, mandatory taxation/extortion); it's violence on top of violence masquerading as "civilized society. " The truth is there are zero times when aggression is actually a good thing, and trying to make the world a better place through aggression never actually works out, as you can observe today and all throughout history, it's a natural law of Creation, and it's about time humanity fully woke up to it.
Closing Comment
So yes, you absolutely have a natural right to own and carry a weapon to use for self-defense. This does not mean however that gun ownership and use should be taken lightly at all; training on correct use of your firearm (i.e., how to use and store the gun itself safely, and also what scenarios actually justify shooting someone and which do not), should be sought out and taken by all gun owners; if you're considering owning a gun, learn the Universal Firearm Safety Rules, do a search for firearm classes in your area, ask questions at local gun shops, and check this directory: https://www.usacarry.com/directory/category/firearm-instructors/
"Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as an excuse for doing evil. Instead be God's servants." (1 Peter 2:16)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Right Documentaries
Gun Right Organizations
- One Million Moms Against Gun Control (1mmagc.org)
- Women Against Gun Control (wagc.com)
- https://www.usconcealedcarry.com
- https://www.dcproject.info/join/
- https://www.firearmspolicy.org/
- https://nationalgunrights.org/
- https://www.cagunrights.org/
- https://massgunrights.org/
- https://gunowners.org/
- https://home.nra.org/
- https://www.saf.org/
- http://jpfo.org/
Gun Right Books
- The War on Guns by John Lott
- Shooting Blanks: Facts Don’t Matter to the Gun Ban Crowd by Alan Gottlieb & Dave Workman
- Hands Off My Gun by Dana Loesch
Gun Right Commentary Videos
News
- https://www.ccrkba.org/
- https://bearingarms.com/
- http://www.thegunmag.com/
- http://keepandbeararms.com/
- https://www.theblaze.com/news/el-paso-gun-class-attendance-skyrockets-after-mass-killing-and-gun-sales-double
- https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2022/2/2/parting-shot-someone-elses-fear-doesnt-negate-my-rights
- https://www.ammoland.com/author/alan-gottlieb/
- https://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-gun-control-myths-that-just-wont-die/
- https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-16-ssri-drug-retailers-psych-drugs-self-defense.html
- https://www.gunownersca.com/2019/08/15/red-flag-laws-insincerity-on-steroids/
- https://nypost.com/2019/05/04/why-i-always-bring-my-glock-to-shabbat/
