To my friends who believe that further curtailing my rights as a citizen of this nation and a free man under God, be careful.  What you wish for may be the complete undoing of your personal world view.  History is replete with examples of gun registration, weapons confiscation, bans, etc, etc, ad nauseum.  Each and every time, those public policies instituted under the guise of public safety, modernization, or to ensure a more secure society have backfired terribly.  I can march out example of example of the atrocities committed by governments, both dictatorial and democratically elected, after these policies are enacted.  So, as a student of history, you’ll have to excuse me from buying into the concept of increased restrictions on my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the defense of those rights via modern firearms as being foolish and outdated.  You see, I pay attention, as do many others like me.  History is our guide and we will not allow this country go down that well-worn path.  The survival of civilization as we know it depends on it.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

For another viewpoint on this topic, go read George Yesthal’s article dealing with this situation.  I love these quotes of his.

Assault rifles are the weapons most likely to be successfully deployed in a militaristic engagement and there are many owned by private citizens in the U.S. today. Is it any wonder the government wants them Gone? But why? There are many of you that will quasi-patriotically defend the stance of your government and say, “Well, if people will use them against the government they must be traitors and criminals, so they must be taken away.” Anyone expressing such an attitude is completely missing the big picture and they are not asking the right question, which is, “What has our government got planned that they should be concerned about the prospect that we might use semi-auto rifles in defense against our government?” People not asking that question are being irresponsibly short-sighted.

When you advocate gun control, it is tantamount to advocating gun violence.

The crux of the pro-gun/anti-gun fervor that is being lost is this.  History teaches us that tyrants cannot rule if the people are equally armed to the government forces.  History also teaches us that when the people are forced or willingly surrender those arms, they no longer are citizens, but become subjects that must beg to keep their rights (which no longer are rights but rather bestowed privileges that can be taken away because, really, the subjects can no longer assert themselves other than shouting really loudly).  So, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Congressmen, Senators, Judge, Justice, Governors, Legislators, do you really think it wise to move against the very arms that ensure that the ardent patriots in this nation remain assured that they are the real political power still?  That they are citizens, not subjects?

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were 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, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You say that I need to give up my arms to live in a more civilized society.  I say that I know how well that worked out in the past and I flatly refuse for my safety and security and the safety and security of my children and yours.

Citizen, not a subject.