The issue is timeless- to us, it’s known as Gun Control- but historically, the urge of the ruling class to deprive the population of its weapons is as old as society itself. History is replete with examples of governments- on the cusp of becoming full-fledged totalitarian regimes- campaigning to disarm their citizens.
Perhaps, the finest example is a late feudal China, where men had to resort to secretly developing systems of combat and disguising weapons as tools for agriculture. From this, we have history’s best proof that the tighter the control system squeezes a population, the more of a threat that population becomes to that government.
That, it can be shown through historical documents, is a major influencer for groups that want to push Democracy over a Republic derived system of government. Democracy is rule by the people- and the people can be pacified and deceived. We only have to look at ourselves for the proof of that.
In a Republic, law is king- and the law can be carefully crafted to protect the people. This is what we have in the American Constitution.
Today, we live in a system that portends to be a democracy. Without that appearance of rule by the people- our government cannot revoke our right to own weapons without instantiating massive unrest. It is for that reason that they are trying to talk us out of our gun rights.
The government has a lot to gain by taking away our ability to defend ourselves from them, the most obvious of which is tighter control. Second, there’s money in it. If you have a system where self-defense is criminalized- you have an artificially created need for protection.
That protection can be set up in the form of massive institutional police and military government departments for which you can be taxed, fined, and coerced to submit to taxes and fines. So, it is not unreasonable to think of any anti-gun legislation as not just a power grab, but a money grab as well.
“I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it.” -Clint Eastwood
Part of their plan is to intentionally misrepresent what weapons are dangerous and what weapons are too deadly to trust citizens with.
Consider the case of the infamous Butterfly knife. This is a weapon commonly featured in films as the tools of malevolent thugs and practiced murderers. Butterfly knives are illegal in California, and several other states because it is easy to sell as too dangerous.
But the fact is, as any combat knife expert will tell you, such a weapon is no more dangerous than any other knife. It is, in fact, less dangerous than knives of a similar size because of the difficulty in accessing the blade, the instability of the handle, and the steep learning curve to using it.
By comparison, a kitchen knife is much easier to use, more stable in the hand, and therefore more dangerous.
Why is it then that the knife is banned? The only logical reason is that this knife inspires fear, and people who do not understand knives can be made to feel protected and cared for by legislators who support anti-butterfly knife policies.
Imagine you are someone who is afraid of crime, and does not understand the capabilities of a butterfly knife. Such a person will be glad to have strict laws controlling possession of these knives, and they are likely to vote for and support any politician who expresses a concern about butterfly knives.
To put it simply, it’s manipulation- and the government bodies, agencies, experts, and facilities necessary to put some teeth in the mouth of your anti-butterfly knife laws will cost taxpayer money. That money can be allocated in just about any way the government sees fit.
Not only that, but the companies that provide the equipment and professional services that those institutions require are likely to be major contributors to the political campaigns of these anti-butterfly knife legislators.
As you can probably already see, our butterfly knife example is perfectly analogous to the case with the AR-15. These guns are essentially nothing more than pistols, with rifle-like enhancements. Which means they are no more destructive than a pistol and are much harder to conceal- making them safer in reality than a pistol.
Once you understand this, all that remains is the question of what does the government want more: control over the population, or easy access to heavier tax revenues.
Regards,
Ethan Warrick
Editor
Wealth Authority
