What people lose perspective of, in our relatively well governed, benevolent period in the western world, is that historically the biggest threats to people’s lives and quality of life aren’t foreign invaders, or criminals, or terrorists. It’s their own government. Genocide, forced relocation, labor camps, death camps, imprisonment for political issues, or just relatively benevolent oppression like the later Soviet Union are all far greater threats to the life and liberty of people than any terrorist (the current boogeymen) has ever been.
Most of you are are probably rolling your eyes. After all, we live in enlightened, modern times. Our governments would never present a serious harm to our life or liberty.
The nature of government is inherently evil, inherently oppressive. Governments become larger, more overbearing, and more a hinderance of the life and happiness of their people as time goes on. This is historically true for just about any government.
Modern western socialist thought that the elite few, the enlightened (among which most of you reading this post will consider yourselves, most likely) should make decisions on behalf of what they consider the impossibly stupid masses who couldn’t possibly make decisions for themselves, is a probably modern cause that will lead the extremely liberal (in a historical sense) modern western governments into tyranny. It’s a continuum, a matter of degree, but governments, absent revolts, always slide towards being larger, more powerful, more oppressive, and more an entity of their own, outside the will of the people.
The distribution of force within a society is a critical measure and balance for curbing this tendency. Any society that wishes to be free from the evils of oppressive government must not let said government have a monopoly on force, and hence, a monopoly on power. History shows over, and over, and over, that such a monopoly on force can never be trusted to be benevolent.
As such, I believe the attempted infringement on arms rights by a government on its citizens is the most important, and most direct assault on their freedom. It’s an attempt to establish a monopoly on force, an ability to rule as an entity outside the people with nearly absolute power. It’s a necesary stepping stone on the way to oppression. As such, any attempt on it should be resisted.
Obviously I dislike this attitude. Your ability to hunt, to be sporting, to engage in recreational, are mere toys compared to the very critical issue of distribution of force.
When bans on military-style weaponry come up for debate, often the recreational shooter crowd is all for them. The bulk of gun owners just want their hunting rifle, and to be left alone - they care nothing for their obligations to defend citizenry against the government. The dichotomy is flawed (hunting weapons make excellent insurgency weapons, and military-style weapons are not nearly as effective in comparison that people believe), but they are willing to sell out on this issue to protect their personal hobbies. Gun rights shouldn’t be about wanting to keep your toy for a hobby - they have so much more important a purpose. (There are plenty of other reasons that I oppose gun control, of course - I don’t want to narrow it down to only being about this issue).
What makes you say this? There’s a big stir whenever there’s any sort of perceived violation of the first amendment - as well it should be. If there were any attempts to marginalize the first amendment in the same way that the second is, there would be a huge uproar.
