Over the last few days in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, we’ve seen renewed calls for gun control. Everyone from Jimmy Kimmel to Hillary Clinton has been stressing the need for more gun control. After a shooting like we just had, I can understand why the immediate reaction and frustration over guns boils over. Personally, I think the 2nd amendment is non negotiable, so I feel the need to explain to the other side why it is so important and fundamental to us as Americans that we have the 2nd Amendment. Even though I believe 100% in the 2nd amendment, I can understand where the other side is coming from. They see a mass shooting, and it seems to them that the obvious answer is just to take away the guns, then the problem is solved. They seek easy answers to a difficult problem, and that is understandable.
I was never super pro-gun. My Dad was, and had a veritable arsenal of over 200 guns, including assault rifles and all manner of devastating firepower. I have photos of me shooting a fully automatic M16 when I was 12 years old. When I was younger, I had no idea why people fetishized guns in the manner they did. Personally, I saw no reason why anyone needed to have an M16 or AK47, even though I thought they were fun to shoot. Even in my teens and 20’s, despite having grown up with them, I still would have been on board for most gun control measures. So what changed? What changed me from being pretty liberal on guns, to being absolutely hard as nails on gun rights? Several things. As with most issues, it’s research that improves one’s perspective. I’m significantly more educated and well-read than I was in those days. As an idealistic young person, I only thought in vague, simple terms. Context and history weren’t my strong suits, so I rushed to simple answers to complex issues.
The first thing that changed my opinion was learning history, both ours and other nations. You see, the entire reason we exist as a nation is because of citizens having guns. The reason we were able to win independence is because we didn’t let the British seize our guns at Lexington and Concord. We were only able to mount an offensive and seize freedom, because the average person took up arms, and fought the King. The founders thought it was so significant for the populace to have guns, because it would prevent tyranny from taking hold. There’s a reason it’s the SECOND amendment. It was thought to be so fundamental, that it had to be inscribed in the Bill of Rights. They understood that they wouldn’t have had their freedom to write it at all, without guns in the hands of the populace. It goes further than us though. It’s the history of other nations that shows us why we need guns.
In the 20th century, over 260 million people died from oppressive regimes. You see, the only way a truly oppressive government can take hold, is if the populace is disarmed. Whether it be Mao or Stalin, the only way those regimes exist and can implement their oppressive ideology, is if the populace can’t fight back. Over and over throughout history, we see examples of disarmament leading to tyranny. I saw a tweet last night about how gun control works amazingly well in England, Spain, Iceland, Israel, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Canada, Japan, and other countries. This is the problem on the other side: lack of context. They conveniently leave out that Sweden and Germany are the rape capitals of the world. Armed women would be able to defend themselves. Sweden has seen an increase in not only rape, but GRENADE attacks of all things. All they’ve done is disarm the citizens and enabled violence against them. Then we have Britain and Spain. These countries have a terrorist attack via truck or bomb every other week. Conspicuously absent from the list of nations above is France. The reason the author of the tweet left it out is because of the Bataclan. In case people forgot, 130 people died there, in a country where gun laws are some of the toughest in the world. In addition, you have the Nice devastating truck attack, and Charlie Hebdo attack. Even Canada literally just had a terrorist attack in Edmonton the other day. Want another modern example that he leaves out? Venezuela. Maduro, the socialist leader, immediately seized guns upon coming into power. Now, the populace is revolting, but they can’t really stop him because they don’t have guns. Maduro immediately redistributed the guns to guess who, his supporters and government.
The most comical ones in the list though are Japan, Iceland, Israel, and Australia. They neglect to mention that these are extremely homogenous societies with virtually no immigration. Israel is virtually militarized, and has a wall, along with armed soldiers everywhere. Australia has such tight immigration control that Johnny Depp had to issue an apology for bringing an unauthorized DOG into the country. Japan might be the most homogenous country on the planet, and has explicitly stated they have no need for immigrants. As we see in Sweden, disarming the population only means you are setting up normal citizens to be victims. Think about it, if you are a criminal and want to rape someone, knowing there’s virtually no chance of them having a gun only serves to embolden you. We’ve seen case after case of criminals finding a way to kill people. Even the Las Vegas shooter had tons of explosives. He was going to kill people, and he had multiple ways to do it ready to go. He could have easily waited for the concert to let out, and bombed them, or driven a truck over them.
The other thing that never happens, is the media never, ever shows the crimes stopped by gun owners. There are thousands of examples of this, but of course the media represses them all. The Tennessee church shooter was memory holed almost immediately by the media for a number of reasons, one of which was that a citizen with a gun stopped him. We also don’t take into account how many times a gun owner stopping a crime prevented possibly large amounts of other crimes. No one in the media cares that a woman stopped a rape because she was armed. She cares though, I can promise you that. You see, the problem with progressives is what I laid out in my God of the Left article. They believe that because they are a good person, then everyone else must have inherent goodness as well. They wouldn’t shoot up or rape someone, so obviously everyone must have that inherent goodness. That view is folly. Evil exists and must be stopped. Liberals and progressives live in a fantasy land where no one will rape if we are just tolerant enough. No government will abuse powers if we give them all of it.
One thing I know that frustrates the left is the general feeling that they can’t get any movement on incremental things, like banning bump stocks. The reason they can’t get any movement on things like that is that we know that it doesn’t stop there. Let’s say we ban bump stocks right now. Inevitably, unless we address our societal issues, we will have another mass shooting not using bump stocks. Then we ban say, high capacity magazines. Then we have another mass shooting. And so on and so on until guns are completely gone. Either that, or they just mass import enough poor immigrants to vote big government until they outright repeal the 2nd, which is the tactic they are currently trying. This is why conservatives aren’t willing to bend on small things these days, because we figured out the left’s tactics. Incrementally chip away freedoms and use the slippery slope for total government control. Fortunately, a lot of progressives are actually dumb enough to suggest repealing the 2nd outright, thus revealing their actual end goals.
The Second Amendment is non-negotiable. It is one of our most fundamental rights, and the one that protects all others.
We cannot allow it to be undermined.