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.
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.