March 4, 2013

• Gun Control Mentality

  I want to take a moment to discuss the mentality that exists among gun control advocates, and why it is flawed. 

  The only people hurt by gun control are law abiding citizens.  Murder, rape, theft, and assault are already illegal.  People who want to do those things will do them with or without guns, and if they want guns bad enough they will still get them from the black market.  My point is that they are already breaking the law, so putting more laws in place isn’t going to stop them, but what it will do is make it harder for non-criminals to defend themselves.  Punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals makes about as much sense as collectively punishing a class. 

  Here is an analogy for gun control:

  Back when I was in high school I had some teachers that would let us watch movies in class.  It was either for the purpose of giving us a form of celebration, or illustrating the concepts we were learning about.  Under those circumstances most students would cooperate, but there were always one or two pricks who would goof off and make noise.  Sometimes the teacher would terminate the movie on behalf of those pricks, and instead give a written assignment for the whole class.  Why do that?  The just thing to do would be to punish only those pricks.  Send them out of class if they refuse to cooperate.  But no, everyone had to be punished.  As a method of prevention such action is both unjust and lazy, not to mention inadequate.  It was worth noting that the bad behavior of those individuals often continued following the new assignment/punishment.

  The whole gun control argument is predicated entirely on emotion, and what it boils down to is leftists saying “I don’t trust you with guns,” or “how do I know you won’t go crazy if you own a gun?”  The guns do not make people go crazy, they are inanimate objects.  I could say that it doesn’t matter to me whether or not what I have or don’t have makes you uneasy, and I could say that it doesn’t matter objectively what you think, but instead I would like to emphasize that those same concerns are AT LEAST equally valid regarding government.  Why is it OK for the government to possess implements of destruction when law abiding citizens cannot?  What special factor is it that makes the government inherently superior and exempt from the sort of insanity that allegedly afflicts citizens when they are armed?  I would like to hear someone attempt to answer that in a logical way, the key word being attempt.  The fact is, governments kill.  Not only do governments kill foreign nationals, but they also kill their own citizens, and governments kill on a much larger scale than do the worst most reprehensible individuals in any given society.  Also, it is a good deal more difficult to hold governments accountable for murder than it is individuals. 

  The fact is, gun control arguments are predicated upon the concept of the ubermensch.  The belief that government, by nature, is somehow more responsible and trustworthy than the citizenry is inseperable from the concept that there is an intellectually and morally superior breed of man, and that this superior man composes the governing body.  There is no way around it.  One cannot argue against citizenry owning weapons based on alleged moral and intellectual aptitude or ineptitude, without applying those same arguments to government.  Having more faith in the government than in fellow citizens puts the government on a pedistal.  If one is concerned about human behavior then that concern applies to all humans, unless one believes that there are quality gradations within humanity based on class.  I know this is getting redundant, but if you trust government more than you trust citizens, then it is because you believe that they have superior intellect and/or virtue over the average man.  You believe in the concept of the ubermensch.

   

  While I do believe that there is variation when it comes to intellect and virtue, those are variations which exist primarily between individuals rather than groups.  The concept of the ubermensch is dangerous because it creates a climate where it is difficult or impossible to hold the government accountable.  People accept actions and decisions based upon the presumed merit of the governing body rather than upon the actual merit of those actions or decision.  People are also more likely to change their views based on what the government and their chronies say rather than what facts and logic would dictate.  People are also more likely to accept natural rights violations because the government supposedly determines morality.  Basically, people now accept a multitude of things uncritically that they might otherwise stop and think about, or flat out reject.

  

  Objective and moral assessment go out the window, because they are no longer needed as far as the citizens are concerned.  The moral majority (if there was one) is replaced by a servile majority, which is critical of those few who still think critically rather than the government, and this only serves to make the tyranny stronger.  If you don’t like something he says then the problem lies with you according to the logic, and you might need to be done away with for the greater good.

  

  The ubermensch mentality was what allowed the Nazis to get away with doing the things they did.  People accepted the Nazi ideology based more on the presumed merit of those who perpetuated it rather than it’s actual merits, and those who criticized it were reported by their neighbors.  Most people didn’t complain when the Jews were rounded up, and those who did were forcefully silenced. 

  It is worth noting that the Nazis took up all the guns from law abiding citizens.  They took away all the guns before they took away all the Jews.  If people still had their guns then at the very least the Nazis would have bled a little when they started rounding people up, even if most of the people were brainwashed into being unsympathetic toward them.

  The fact is, gun control is really about people control.  Governments want gun control for the same reason they want the citizens to see them as superior.  They want to be able to do whatever they want without being challenged on any level.  It is evident that most people in government consider themselves to be a superior breed of man, and they want us to believe it too, but I’m not buying it. 

  I want to make something very clear, anyone can be the Jews next time.  A lot of people don’t seem to care when the government goes after the other guy, or the other group, but if they go after him they can go after you, especially in the sort of cultural climate where people either don’t care or just accept it when the government goes after anyone for any reason.

  The second ammendment wasn’t created strictly for home defense, although that is included, it was created to safeguard our freedom in case the government ever got out of control.  When I see liberals saying things like “F*** the 2nd ammendment” and “the Constitution is outdated” I am gravely concerned.  It just goes to show how divorced the left is from the founding principles of our nation.  Our country was not founded based on being mean to Native Americans or women.  Niether did the founding fathers have anything in common with Al Qaida or Hamas.

  Our country was founded based on freedom, and the idea that there are inalienable natural rights which exist independent of human agency.  When those rights are violated by a government then the government loses it’s legitimacy.  We don’t just accept whatever the government does because it’s the government or because we hate group X. 

  • 1:50 pm
  • 15 Comments