From Chips to Arms: Why a U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund SHOULD Include Gun Manufacturers

Opinion
Editors’ Note: Innovative ideas to fortify Second Amendment rights are always welcome; we recognize potential pitfalls in government equity stakes, such as risks of overreach, commodification of our GOD-given liberties, and implementation hurdles that could entangle the firearms industry in bureaucracy. But we are open to all Ideas that support our RKBA.

When the federal government, under the Trump administration, announced it had taken nearly a ten percent equity stake in Intel, it signaled more than an industrial policy shift.

It revealed a willingness to treat corporate equity as a national asset belonging to every citizen, not merely a private enterprise. If Washington can justify converting semiconductor grants into ownership shares to secure the digital backbone of the republic, why not extend the same reasoning to the firearms industry—the physical guarantor of both national security and individual liberty?

The Logic of Sovereign Wealth

A sovereign wealth fund (SWF), as announced by the Trump Administration, is, at its core, a vehicle for converting today’s assets into tomorrow’s security. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, estimated at $1.6 trillion, pays out the equivalent of about $2,500 annually to every Norwegian citizen through public spending and services, funded by its oil revenues. Singapore’s Temasek and GIC funds, together estimated at over $900 billion, help sustain national reserves and long-term economic stability, providing an average citizen benefit valued at roughly $1,000–$1,500 a year in healthcare, housing, and retirement offsets.

For the United States, the potential lies not in surplus commodities but in strategic industries that embody American sovereignty: semiconductors, critical minerals, and firearms. Given that the U.S. economy is more than ten times larger than Norway’s, a well-structured American SWF could, in theory, generate annual citizen benefits worth $5,000–$10,000 per household if scaled to the same proportion of GDP. Even on a more modest scale, such a fund could provide every American with direct dividends, major tax relief, or even the elimination of federal income taxes, healthcare costs, or retirement burdens—transforming strategic industries into a living endowment for the republic.

Unlike abstract fiscal maneuvers, equity stakes create tangible alignment between state and citizen. The taxpayer ceases to be a passive underwriter (getting zero compensation or benifit for its tax dollars) of subsidies or contracts and becomes, through the state, a shareholder in America’s future.

Firearms as a Strategic Industry

The firearms sector already functions as a dual-use industry—serving both defense contracts and the lawful civilian market. Companies such as Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Sig Sauer, and The Kinetic Group’s ammunition brands not only supply the Department of Defense, federal law enforcement, and state agencies, but also furnish millions of Americans with the arms necessary to exercise their constitutional rights.

From a security standpoint, firearms manufacturing is no less vital than semiconductor fabrication. If chips are the nervous system of modern warfighting, small arms remain the sinews and bones. An equity stake would recognize this reality and protect it against erosion from foreign acquisition, activist de-banking, or market volatility.

Industry Response: Between Shield & Shackle

How would manufacturers themselves respond to such a proposal? Likely with ambivalence.

On the one hand, gun makers are fiercely independent. A government shareholder could be seen as a camel’s nose under the tent, raising fears of regulatory leverage, public optics problems, or eventual intrusion into boardroom decisions. From this angle, government capital looks less like a lifeline and more like a leash.

On the other hand, there are clear benefits. A U.S. equity stake could stabilize finances, reassure investors, and shield companies from ESG-driven boycotts and banking discrimination. It could also elevate firearms to the same prestige tier as Intel, Lockheed, or Boeing—recognition as a strategic industry at the heart of the republic’s survival. For some manufacturers, that shield could outweigh the suspicion.

The Second Amendment as Shareholder Value

Here lies the deeper constitutional resonance. By holding equity in firearms manufacturers, the U.S. government would transform its relationship to the Second Amendment. Instead of treating the right to keep and bear arms as a social liability to be managed or outright banned, Washington would affirm it as a national asset worth investing in.

Such ownership would not dictate policy from above, nor should it. But it would create a built-in incentive for the government to preserve a healthy firearms ecosystem. Just as the state has an interest in keeping Intel competitive against TSMC and Samsung, it would have an interest in ensuring that Ruger and Smith & Wesson thrive against foreign and domestic pressures. [Can you say United Nations?]

In practice, this makes infringement less attractive: dismantling the civilian firearms market would directly reduce taxpayer value.

Activist Response: Division Within the Ranks

Among pro-gun activists, the idea would spark an equally divided debate.

Hardened grassroots absolutists would be expected to reject it outright. For them, the very essence of the Second Amendment is decentralization—citizens independent from state power. A government stake in firearms and ammunition firms might look like federal intrusion or even a Trojan horse to steer production toward government contracts and away from the civilian market.

Yet pragmatists might see the logic. If Washington literally “owns” a stake in the firearms industry, it has a financial interest in its survival. That makes sweeping bans less politically tenable. It also forces policymakers to recognize firearms as integral to America’s security architecture, not a cultural liability.

In this view, equity investment is less a threat than a shield, making the Second Amendment financially self-defending.

“Too Big to Fail” as Constitutional Insurance

The phrase “too big to fail” is usually said with disdain, conjuring memories of banks and automakers propped up despite mismanagement. But in the context of firearms, turning that concept on its head could be a strength. If the government, through a sovereign wealth stake, treats the arms industry as too vital to fail, it sends a profound message: the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is not a relic but an essential component of American sovereignty. Firearms companies would be recognized by the political class not as fringe consumer businesses, but as national security assets whose survival underwrites both the military abroad and liberty at home.

In this sense, “too big to fail” becomes “too essential to abandon”—a constitutional guarantee expressed in financial terms.

Answering the Critics

Skeptics will invoke “corporate welfare” or “government picking winners.” Yet this argument ignores precedent. The U.S. already took stakes in banks and automakers during the 2008 crisis. It now owns a major piece of Intel without a national emergency at hand. The real question is whether Americans are willing to extend this same logic to industries that not only produce jobs and returns but safeguard the republic’s most ancient liberty.

Furthermore, firearms companies are not speculative ventures. They are among the nation’s most historic consumer-facing manufacturing segments, with demand streams rooted in constitutional rights, law enforcement needs, and military procurement. Few sectors offer such steady dual resilience.

Toward an American Model of Sovereign Wealth

If Washington is serious about constructing a sovereign wealth fund, it should not limit itself to semiconductors and renewable energy. An American SWF must reflect the full spectrum of sovereignty: technological independence, resource security, and armed citizenry.

Firearms investments would generate returns and serve as a constitutional backstop. They would tether financial capital to civic capital. In effect, every American taxpayer would become a stakeholder in the Second Amendment’s material and moral architecture.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Intel may represent the technological brains of America’s future. But firearms remain the heart. A sovereign wealth fund that excludes them risks being little more than an accounting exercise. A sovereign wealth fund that includes them could become what the Framers envisioned the republic itself to be: a system where liberty and security are not opposing poles but mutually reinforcing assets.

What do you think? Should the U.S. taxpayer, via a sovereign wealth fund have a financial stake in our GOD given right to keep and bear arms?

We are in dangerous times! We are NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?

America’s Firearms Industry: The One Industry That Never Left

ABA Recommends …MORE Gun Control! Continuing a Track Record of 24 Years of Infringing on 2A Rights