The Gun Control Battle is a Choice Between a Police State and a Free Society

2a-gun-control-safety-control-777

By TJ Martinell

Gun control proponents often paint the fight over gun rights as a battle between “gun sense” advocates and fringe elements who want dangerous people to have access the firearms. In reality, the conflict is a fundamental choice every society must make. Does it want to live in a police state or a free society?

That’s the conclusion Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble came to recently following terrorist attacks in Kenya.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News he said,  “there are really only two choices for protecting open societies…either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.”

He went on (bold emphasis added):

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

Let’s not sugarcoat what “extraordinary security” entails. Noble might not have meant it this way, but “secure” locations inevitably translate into prison-like environments. This approach means citizens are totally deprived of their right to self-defense in certain areas. “Security” means robbing people of their individual freedoms. It means checkpoints and searches as part of ordinary life.

Of course, there’s the free society option, where everyone has access to firearms and can protect themselves. No one must surrender their rights to be safe.

In an interview with Czechia’s Blesk, Czech president Miloš Zeman said his country should choose the second option.

I really think that citizens should arm themselves against terrorists. And I honestly admit that I changed my mind, because previously I was against [citizens] having too many weapons. After these attacks, I don’t think so [anymore]”.

Zeman’s comment brings up an important truth: A gun control advocate cannot claim ignorance about the futility of their position forever. Eventually, it becomes apparent the concept does not work because all the evidence contradicts it. If people are truly interested in public safety, they respond to the evidence by putting aside their prior beliefs and pushing for a free society in which ordinary people can keep and bear arms.

In contrast, those who still cling to a gun control agenda reveal by their words and actions that their real goal isn’t safety, but control.

The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry (Ad)

Several years ago, fellow Pacific Northwest writer Jack Donovan made the astute observation that gun control is just a tactful way to push for a police state (bold emphasis added):

Men without guns are at the mercy of men who have guns. If the state controls all of the guns, the people are at the mercy of the state. All they can do is plead. Men who are not allowed access to the means to challenge tyranny are no longer free men. They are subjects, possibly even slaves. A country where the people have no power that matters can no longer call itself a free country.  A state where the people must rely on the benevolence of a small, all-powerful ruling class that maintains a complete monopoly on violence is a police state.

The choice could not be clearer. Americans must resist efforts to bring about a police state by restricting access to firearms. Our right to self-defense must never be abridged for the sake of “security.” The safest hands we can entrust our safety in, is our own.

TJ Martinell is a Seattle-based reporter and author of the Orwellian novel The Stringers. Visit his personal site at tjmartinell.com. He writes for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

20 Comments on "The Gun Control Battle is a Choice Between a Police State and a Free Society"

  1. The security is irrelevant because any time there’s an “active shooter” or “terrorist” scenario, 99% of the time it’s a government operation and the thugs are allowed through any security that exists. This is another reason they want the population disarmed. Just one armed individual can bring any false flag operation to an immediate halt. The PTB just can’t allow that now can they!!?? Their fear and terror campaigns wouldn’t be too successful.

  2. You want to compare America to Kenya and the Czech Republic. Really? Aren’t there more relevant comparisons in Canada, the UK, Australia, most of western Europe. They get along fine without guns but sadly, for the writer’s argument, by some miracle all of them have avoided becoming police states.

    • Saying they’re not police states is a little naieve. The massive protests in Toronto (and subsequent arrests) mask a deep problem covered by canada’s smiling veneer. And you can’t GET more “police state” than the UK, where you can’t walk 5 feet and not be surveiled by CCTV. As for Australia, unilaterally declaring guns illegal and confiscating them because of a shooting incident (which is pretty suspect btw) is, what by your definition? A free and unfettered democracy? I hate to call BS on your examples, but, ahh…BS.

      • Austrailian officials have come out recently after all the problems with muslims and other criminals telling Americans “don’t give up your guns” only half the guns were turned in and more are being smuggled in for those who don’t embrace the law. then there is the crime rate increase of knife attacks and beatings of old people and women.

        • All Australian officials? I get so tired of people citing an increase in knife attacks. yes it happened – from a tiny number to slighter bigger tiny number. But that’s missing the point that murders – people losing their lives – decreased massively.

          • yes the video I watched of an Australian official was pretty firm in his advice to Americans not just because of a few knife attacks but many from the rising influx of muslims. maybe you should look at the new numbers since you have allowed so many of your new friends to move in.

      • Yes, a free and unfettered democracy is good definition. And you are so wrong. You can get way more police state than the UK. You don’t get slung in prison for having the wrong political views. Habeus corpus is applied, well, most of the time. The UK doesn’t have gulags or a Guantanamo Bay gulags although there’s distressing collusion with the US in some cases. Sure police surveillance is deplorable but it does also help protect citizens. Meanwhile freedom of expression, religion, freedom to roam, freedom from sexual, gender and race persecution if not absent is less of an issue in most people’s lives. And there’s a basic assumption that as a citizen you have every right to go about your own business without having to carry ID. I’ve only visited the States so I can’t really compare but having lived in the UK for more than 10 years at a stretch my impression is that there’s much more acceptance there of people just being themselves.

    • You should stick to motorcycle forums were you have some credibility.

  3. “Take my guns and someone will die today” Cochise. The greatest American that ever lived.

  4. No, it isn’t. The fact you had to got Kenya to find anything to support your argument shows how flimsy it is.

  5. I enjoy that people dither about the 2nd amendment “which may or may not secure the rights of the individual the right to bear arms” because the 2nd amendment is irrelevant!
    What is relevant is the 9th amendment which secures the individuals right to self preservation quite nicely! Give it a read sometime!

    • Right, although I don’t really consider the 2nd “irrelevant.” I would add the 10th Amendment as well. I have trouble memorizing the 9th and 10th because of their similarity.

      • Really? you can’t commit TWO sentences to memory?
        9th amendment; The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        10th amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

        And apparently in your mind, they’re entirely too similar for you to distinguish between them.. sigh

        • When you consider that I have managed to memorize the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and several more items of the Bill of Rights, and there are similarities in the last two that essentially restrict power from the feds and give it back to the People or the states, yes, I have a bit of problem distinguishing between these two — when I’m away from the book. That said, I can tell you a lot of details that you probably haven’t committed to memory, such as exactly where to find that the natural born Citizen requirement applies to VP candidates as much as to the presidential candidates, where to find the distinctions between direct and indirect taxation, and a lot of things the average HS grad of today isn’t even aware exist.

          So go sigh all you want. I’m content with the knowledge I do have in memory, especially, as Henry Ford used to do, knowing where to go to find what I may not know. Can you?

          • desertspeaks | August 22, 2016 at 8:05 pm |

            wow you’ve committed a lot to memory,.. what part of the constitution makes it apply to you or me just because of a physical presence within a particular geographic area? Is the application magic or just arbitrary and capricious ?
            Did you sign it? Did you take an oath of office that would contractually obligate you to it? Did you agree to any of it?
            Can you be forced and coerced into accepting a contract? would force and coercion nullify any implied consent? Would fraud vitiate any such contract?
            If you can’t prove it applies to you, then it nor any subsequent amendments and or legislation could never apply!

          • Since you asked, the Constitution applies to you if you were born on the soil and your parents hold (or at least one holds) citizenship. Under the Immigration Act of 1952, you can also be a regular citizen (not necessarily natural born) if you were born on foreign soil to citizen parents. The application would be legal, unless you, having reached the age of majority, choose to renounce it.

            No I didn’t sign the Constitution. I may be “old” but not that old — as you well know. Did I take an oath to uphold it? Yes, as I hold an elective office. And I agree to at least 95% of it. A person can be forced or coerced to accepting a contract, say on threat to life, but that acceptance is not binding and would, as you state nullify any implied consent. Yes, fraud would vitiate a contract — but you are digressing into contract law in general, which I really don’t wish to take the time to get into, and I suspect you of having too much time on your hands to pose such baiting questions.

          • desertspeaks | August 23, 2016 at 1:12 pm |

            You wrote a lot and proved NOTHING.. What is your legal premise, SLAVERY!! you were born so it applies!

  6. They are just making claim that all are under Fed Gov control. Then the Military and law enforcement should be patrolling every State for our protection. Face it with the terrorist threat and Fed involvement the Military should be standing up anyways. Leadership at all levels is pathetically weak and corrupted, that being the main point is not assaulting the 2nd amendment.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*