On February 21 2018, almost exactly four years ago, I wrote an article focusing on guns. I had not written one before and haven’t since, until today. Looking back at it, I believe I proposed some unique ideas not usually part of the gun discussion; on the other hand, I was wrong on some proposed details. Maybe it’s clichéd, but the world has turned out very different than anyone could have anticipated in just these four years. Even that’s an understatement. My premise in 2018 was that most people lived with a basic expectation of law and order and that basic self-protection rights should be expanded even if that meant tighter control of other classifications of arms. It was all ideas and discussion as neither side of the ledger had a chance of any change but regardless, conditions have shifted drastically in four years; an update is needed.
What does not change:
Expecting gun laws to fundamentally change criminal gun use is still the height of stupidity. Government can try to take them away, but they will not succeed in taking what is hidden from them and what they cannot find. They cannot empty the ocean.
Arming responsible citizenry always reduces gun related crime, sometimes drastically.
What has changed:
Government not only cannot protect you all of the time; rather, in many jurisdictions, laws and the justice system have intentionally and greatly disadvantaged all of the law abiding. At best, some people have some protection some of the time.
The present federal government and some state governments are taking steps to permanently diminish justice against many crimes, even including violent crime. At the same time, they are criminalizing a whole class of conscientious convictions, to the point of creating ‘thought crimes’.
Some state and municipal governments are criminalizing whole sets of police operations.
These changes are not the seasonal ebb and flow of social movements unless you zoom out far enough to realize there is a revolution at the gates seeking to overthrown American democracy and outlaw all facets of conservatism. In light of the new realities, how should guns be treated? I’d suggest just a few strategic focal points.
- Still make sure that psychopaths and mentally ill don’t get their hands on guns. Every time a mass shooting happens, the assault on gun rights ramps up anew.
- Stay close to and support local law enforcement. We are allies. Gun rights advocates and law enforcement need each other more than ever.
- Own more guns, as many as possible now, while you can. Practice them, protect them, know how to use them.
This last point, I believe is the most critical on multiple fronts. The most immediate is the increasing probability that firearms will be needed for self-protection, but even that’s a distant contingency for the average household. The most important reason is the deterrence of numbers – many people, many guns. Most people of a certain age will remember MAD, relating to the nuclear arms race. Mutually Assured Destruction is the reason the entire globe has been spared a major world war since the mid 20th century. Send a missile to my capitols, then your capitols will be leveled and incinerated as well in about thirty minutes. Relative to domestic order this takes two forms: First, if a community is known to be well armed, to include homes, concealed carry, and open carry, the criminal element must play a game of roulette before deciding to carry out theft or violence. This is of course well known to everyone but progressives; it’s the reason that more legal guns produce drastically less crime in an area.
The second area where more guns provide more safety is in government overreach. In the back of everyone’s minds is the hypothetical scenario where the government does much like Canada this week, declares emergency powers, and rules by dictatorial decree. The next step could be for the government to systematically destroy the opposition. How bad does it have to get before that constituency takes up arms?
In another post, I quoted Sun Tzu, sage of ‘The Art of War’: ‘Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”. To paraphrase this and much of his philosophy as a general: If you must fight to win a war, you’ve already lost. Wars are won before they’re fought.
The role of firearms is crucial in this equation. Progressive regimes are always working to disarm law abiding citizens. Trust us they say. This is pitifully deluded. You see this in horrifying detail almost every day in American cities when subway riders, women, Asians, innocent people, including a large number of blacks, are slaughtered and far too often the perps are let out by a George Soros funded DA. Since the outbreak of radical leftist burning cities in 2020, firearms sales have sky-rocketed and there is no stopping it now.
The numbers of legal firearms in this country are or will become the reason we never have to fight our own government. At some point, it becomes impossible for a government to disarm its own people; it’s a matter of numbers, the cost of attempting to becomes too risky, just like MAD. You own a gun precisely so that you never have to use them. Every gun is a vote. You vote against gun control, crime and government overreach by virtue of owning a firearm. If you own a firearm, everyone is less vulnerable to crime and government overreach.