One of the big problems with the "gun issue" is that it is "the gun issue" in the minds of both sides, instead of the "self defense issue." Both sides of the argument get carried away in opposing or defending the right to carry a gun in self-defense. The "antis" insist that it is not necessary to have the right to carry a gun, and specifically not those guns that are big enough, or shoot enough bullets as to threaten more than one individual at a time. The "pros" argue that ANY restrictions on the rights of gun owners are "but the opening wedges" in a growing attempt to disarm all Americans. That gun registration is usually followed by gun confiscation, which has, in all too many cases, been followed by genocide against those so disarmed.Here are some interesting figures I received in an unsigned article called: "After Gun Control" sent me by Ivan Shapiro, M. D., of Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership: Shapiro says: "This is very well described in 'Lethal Laws' by Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Go to http://www.jpfo.org/lethal.htm . I also suggest 'Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny' http://www.jpfo.org/gateway.htm"
"WHAT HAPPENS AFTER GUN CONTROL? The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
TOTAL VICTIMS: 56 MILLION."
One of the reasons the Founders cited for the populace to be armed was to inhibit the government from usurping too many powers and becoming tyrannical. They envisioned the very idea that government agents might come up against armed citizens when attempting to overstep their authority as a means to inhibit them from doing so. Therefore, the argument that a citizen should be barred from having anything larger than that needed for hunting is spurious. And the argument, from the "pros," that their wish to keep guns mostly for hunting and sports is also spurious, while it gives the antis something to argue against.
THE WRONG PREMISE The entire argument is focused on the wrong basic premise. Not even the anti-gun people would argue that we have no right to self-defense. They just want to take away the best tool to accomplish it in these days where every criminal is armed: the gun. Their lack of reasoning in this is obvious: how does an unarmed person defend oneself against a gun when the criminal is armed? They have no answer. That's because there is no answer. It cannot be done unless one does as the ancient Japanese did, and learn how to defend oneself unarmed. And that would be much more difficult today when the principal weapon of the criminal is not a sword, but a gun.
In this, the "pros" are right. The "antis" are wrong. The main reason for keeping guns is for self-defense. It's as simple as that, and the quicker the "pros" realize this and start arguing it that way, as a "self-defense issue," rather than a "gun issue," the more progress they'll make with their arguments to the American people.
One of the reasons why the "antis" have been able to rally so many otherwise intelligent people to their side is that the argument is about "guns," which many see as a danger in themselves. But to argue against the right of self-defense itself is folly. And when you have successfully argued in FAVOR of self-defense, the right to own and use the means toward that end becomes logical. The "antis" have so far made an illogical argument work because they've been arguing against the tool, not the right, itself.
In an article recently published by "The Objectivist Daily", ("Gentlemen, Leave Your Guns Outside"), Peter Saint Andre'), attempted to dissect Ayn Rand's ideas on gun ownership:
"Such an application would imply that a government possesses moral value or authority to the extent that it exercises only those minimum powers related to the objective definition and use of force in protection or retaliation against the initiation of force by individuals or other governments; and it would imply that a government forfeits its moral authority to the extent that it assumes powers beyond the absolute minimum -- specifically, to the extent that it initiates force or requires non-coercive individuals to relinquish any of their rights (including their property rights and their right of physical self-defense).
"A fully consistent Objectivist theory of government remains to be developed. However, it is clear that such a theory would not hold that the price of admission to 'free, civilized society' is 'renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government [one's] right of physical self-defense'. Rather, it would hold the exact opposite: that society cannot be free and civilized if the individuals within it are compelled to "leave their guns outside" and relinquish their fundamental right to self-defense." [Emphasis mine. -RT]
We all know that the police cannot be everywhere and are, as noted by Andre', often reduced to the role of "taking notes after the damage is done." Why then, is it so hard to understand that a person faced with an armed criminal should not have the right to own, use, and have handy the means to defend him/herself against that threat, wherever that means may be? Why should we allow the criminals, who do not obey laws anyway, to have a monopoly on the use of arms? Why should we offer them a "free field" by letting them know that most of the people they seek to victimize will not be armed and will be "easy pickings?"
The police cannot protect us, except in the most unusual and coincidental cases where they happen to be on scene when the crime "goes down." So we must be properly equipped to defend ourselves. That's logical, and to deny it defies logic. The Founders realized that, so why can't our present leaders realize it also? The answer is, of course, they seek to become tyrants themselves. They may not even realize this, since they have such a good capacity to fool themselves as to their real motives, but it is true.
The first thing you must do to help in this fight is to keep yourself informed as to things the power seekers don't want you to know.
To do that, join my "Forced Altruism List" by going to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/forcedaltruism and following the instructions to get a daily update on what's happening and a place where you can express your own gripes and frustrations by posting them to the entire List.
You may also read the current issue of the monthly online web based newsletter, "Beyond Common Sense," by going to: http:www.angelfire.com/co2/beyondcommonsense.
If you like what you see, you may subscribe to the Announcement List that notifies you when a new issue comes out by going to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/beyondcommonsense and following the instructions.
Email -|- HOME
