If you listen to the marketing campaigns of the handful of gun control control groups in the United States, they all have very similar campaigns.
Moms Demand Action/Everytown (Michael Bloomberg’s conjoined gun control twins) are attempting to pass very restrictive gun control laws and force private businesses to restrict the lawful carrying of firearms within their stores. They frame their arguments emotionally, suggesting that women are at a risk of domestic violence if a firearm is in the home (even if women own those firearms) and that children are at risk everywhere there are firearms. They focus almost exclusively on creating fear in upper middle class white mothers and grandmothers who vote for Democrats.
The Brady Campaign, once the nation’s most recognizable gun control group several decades ago, has not become the AARP of gun control, catering to a demographic even older than Moms Demand Action/Everytown. Their rhetoric is roughly the same as the Bloomberg groups, but they also occasionally file lawsuits, seemingly for political and public relations purposes.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has a more shrill, more left-wing, and more overtly toxic nature, and routinely refers to citizens who support the right to bear arms as “insurrectionists.” They see Americans who own firearms as a threat to the sort of big government they support as a threat that must be destroyed.
There are other minor players of note in the gun control scene, but they are of relatively little consequence.
All of these groups, regardless of their specific messaging, desire the same outcome. They would like to eventually see the Second Amendment destroyed, but failing that, they would like to see laws heavily restricting who may exercise their rights, where they may be exercised, and confine these rights to archaic and ineffective firearms.
It appears that it is the belief of many, if not all of these groups, that only the government itself should be armed, and they seem to be quite incurious if not utterly indifferent to how government would use a full monopoly on the use of force.
They are either unaware of what happens when government has all the power over the citizenry, or are simply in favor of what results, imagining that they will be a part of such a government, and therefore immune from those abuses.
* * *
Political science professor and repeated Nobel Peace Prize nominee R.J. Rummel dedicated his professional life to investigating “the causes and conditions of collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination.” Much of Rummel’s work is documented on his web site at the University of Hawaii, where he is Professor Emeritus.
Rummel is thought responsible for coining the term “democide,” which is defined as “the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder.” As a practical matter, democides are practiced primarily in nations where the citizenry, or at least minority populations, have been disarmed by their governments.
The greatest democide offenders (“deka-megamurderers” in Rummel’s terminology) in the 20th Century were the Soviet Union, Communist Chinese, Nazi Germany, and Chinese Nationalists, who all killed well in excess of 10 million souls each. Lesser democides were conducted by regimes in Japan, Poland, Cambodia, Mexico, Turkey, Vietnam, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, and the various democides in South and Central America and throughout Africa (many of which are continuing to this day) which are too numerous to mention.
Rummel (rightfully, in my estimation) has tied the presence of democratic government to the lack of democide, which is to claim that nations with real democratic elections are less likely to slaughter their citizens.
But I’d add a correlation to Rummel’s work. It seems that democides are not often attempted against significantly armed populations. Citizen disarmament, invariably carried out in the name of “public safety” through “common sense” gun control policy, is a necessary prerequisite to democide. It is the disarmed masses who can be sent to concentration camps, and gulags by government forces that are numerically smaller the populations they desire exterminate to exterminate. It is the disarmed that can be sent on death marches into the desert, or slaughtered village by village.
In the 20th century alone, governments murdered 262 million disarmed citizens.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the American people the ability to depose foreign invaders and tyrannical government alike by the force of arms.
At the present, there are 300+ million firearms in the United States, owned by an estimated 80-100 million citizens. The most popular rifle sold in the past decade has been the AR-15, which is the civilian equivalent of the military M4/M16 (firearms typically fired in the AR-15’s semi-automatic mode to save ammunition). Millions of citizens who own these arms are military veterans with combat experience.
While some less-informed people scoff and imagine any future conflict would pit men in trenches and fortifications against tanks and bombers, the reality of the matter is that the American citizenry can easily match and eventually overwhelm a corrupt federal government in 4th generation warfare, where the combat would consist of rural ambushes, targeted political killings, and fast urban combat that would render armor and airpower almost worthless.
Our pre-existing right to be arms, captured in the Second Amendment but by no means limited to it, ensures our liberty, even as other nations fall into tyranny and see they constitutions collapse time and again.
Our 2nd Amendment right is not without cost. We do have more small-scale criminal violence using firearms than other 1st world countries, even though other countries have more violent crime overall.
[continues on next page]