LUVERNE, AL –-(Ammoland.com)- For as long as I've been alive the social elitist has been floating the term “Gun Control”.
The first serious or official use of the term in the U.S. came from “Gun Control Act of 1968”.
That act added to the previously existing Federal Government firearms restrictions put in place by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
In both cases, opportunist politicians used a popular crisis to persuade the ignorant and mentally lazy that more laws would make the nation a ‘safer‘ place. In 1934 the crisis was gang-land violence brought on by Prohibition and in 1968 we were still dealing with the assassination of President Kennedy.
From a historical perspective, the term Gun Control is relatively new, but the concept and practice are as old as man himself. It is the determination of who can and cannot possess arms by whatever government happens to be in place. Civilian Disarmament in the history books dates back to the time of the Roman Empire. Fearing disobedience by the conquered Jews, Rome forbade them from owning swords.
Moving to the Far East, in 1587 Toyotami Hideyoshi unified the various political factions of Japan and instituted the “Sword Hunt”. Farmers, or the peasant class, were forbidden to own swords, bows, spears, or any firearm. This ensured the continued separation of the ruling class from the peasants; the rulers from the ruled.
Great Britain has a long and storied history of disarming those it feels unworthy or peasant class. British Parliament passed several versions of the Disarming Act from 1715 through 1746. Early on, the Scots were first forbidden to carry a sword in public then they were forbidden possess the sword or “any weapon of war”.
Similarly, hoping to ensure absolute control over India, the British applied the Disarming Act to the Indian people forbidding them to own firearms.
During more recent history Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party passed their own version of the Gun Control in 1938 and forbid Jews and others they considered to be “undesirable“, or peasants, from owning firearms. If you don't know how that turned out there is no hope for you.
Keep in mind that during everyone of these instances, the ruling class put forth the laws as “reasonable” and “necessary“. Politicians consented and cast their vote to disarm those deemed unworthy of possessing arms.
In the United States you cannot use the word “disarm“, instead the more deceptive and “reasonable” term “gun control” has been substituted. The words ‘gun control‘ seem to the moderate or intellectually lazy to be rather innocuous. After all, who could argue against the “reasonable” and “rational” control of weapons?
“Gun Control” is a soft pill, one that is easy for the distracted masses to swallow. The term implies that only certain types of guns will be “controlled” and that the citizen will not be disarmed but merely restricted for the safety of the greater good.
The modern argument over the shape, style, accessories, ammunition capacity, and configuration of this firearm or that is merely a smokescreen to cover a very old agenda, Civilian Disarmament. Step number one in discussing the issue is to set the ground rules and reject the term “gun control” as both deliberately misleading and illegitimate. Refuse to accept that term. If someone says “gun control” stop them right there and correct them. “You mean disarmament.” If they protest and claim gun control is not disarmament there are either a woefully naïve or a purposeful liar. Either way you have established the baseline.
A person either favors civilian disarmament or they do not. It is no more complex than that. Those who wish to disarm you will deliberately cloud the issue with hyperbole about magazine capacity, action-types, etc. Never mind the fact that cities in the United States with the strictest gun control also have the highest violent crime rate or that areas where concealed carry by citizens is prevalent have the lowest violent crime. Those facts be damned. The first murder in recorded history was committed with a rock. Murder and suicide existed long before the invention of the firearm and will continue until this world stops turning.
The question on the table is this: who should possess weapons, the government or the citizenry?
Two-hundred and thirty years ago that question was answered in the United States very plainly and clearly. Innumerable documents written by the nation's founders, not just the Bill of Rights, spell out the need for the citizen to be the final authority in a free nation.
During the time of the British Coercive Acts in 1774 Josiah Quincy wrote “No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty without uniting the characters of citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state. The sword should never be in the hands of any, but those who have an interest in the safety of the community… Such are a well regulated militia composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
It was understood at that time that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed and only by having parity in arms with that government could men return that power to the citizen should it be abused.
During the two centuries that followed the founding of the United States, we have become the most prosperous and thereby most comfortable people on the planet. That comfort has turned to sloth and sluggishness. The populace has forgotten the hard fought lessons of their fathers and fallen into a state of illusion where the nature of man has somehow changed from the previous thousands of years.
We are expected to believe that unchecked governmental power is now preferable and beneficial to society.
That the citizen no longer has the right to hold the government accountable and certainly no longer maintains the right to return that power to the citizen.
Frustration and Quandary
For those who have yet to sell their principles and their very souls for the offer of a free phone or the unattainable nirvana of government mandated peace and safety, these are most trying times. The modern patriot is confronted on all sides by the comfortable slave and the social elitist. The citizen is extolled to be reasonable and accept rational limits to his liberty for the common good and an empty promise of security.
The first step in the process of legitimate debate is to refuse the offer of “gun control“. Call a spade a spade and inquire from the elitist or useful idiot whether they favor civilian disarmament or not. Ask them if they believe their fellow citizens have the right to possess arms or whether the government has the authority to disarm them. If you weaken and fall prey to the seductive talk of compromise you have already lost and very soon will fall in line with the rest of the “civilized” world.
You will be forced to take your place in the ranks of the comfortable slaves who inhabit the majority of this planet.
Paul Markel c 2012
Follow Paul Markel at Student of the Gun.com .