You can’t fight the government with an AR-15, and why would you want to fight the government anyway? From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:
There are two fundamental arguments most commonly made against gun control.
The Anti-Crime Argument
The first one is based on the idea that persons have a fundamental right to self-defense against ordinary criminals. That is, in a world where criminals have access to either legal or illegal weapons, ordinary people ought to be able to arm themselves for purposes of self defense.
The benefits of private gun ownership in this regard can be illustrated in a variety of ways. Mexico’s strict gun-control regime, for instance, ensures ordinary Mexicans are at the mercy of the cartels and ordinary street criminals. Mexico’s astoundingly high homicide rates illustrate the unfortunate reality.
Moreover, within the United States, some of the worst regions for homicides are areas with some of the most strict gun control laws. Baltimore, for example, has a homicide rate ten times that of the United States overall, while the state of Maryland heavily restricts gun ownership.
Studies that assert “more guns means more crime,” meanwhile, have never been able to demonstrate a causal relationship here. Not only is there no reliable data on where exactly all the guns are, but the direction of causality can go either way. We would expect people living in a high crime area to be more likely to purchase a gun for protection. In other words, the proper conclusion may just as likely be “more crime means more guns.”
The gun-for-self-defense argument is the easier one to make. For the most part, one need only argue that people need to be at least as well armed as ordinary criminals. Shotguns and rifles for home defense, or conceal-carry of handguns, for instance, would arguably be sufficient.
Most of the time when governments “do something,” it expands the power of the government and restricts the freedom of individuals. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:
When tragedy strikes, as it did in two mass killings earlier this month, there is always the urge to pressure the government do something. Governments are animated by the belief that doing something — any demonstrable overt behavior — will show that they are in control. I understand the natural fears that good folks have that an El Paso or a Dayton episode might happen again, but doing something for the sake of appearance can be dangerous to personal liberty.
When the Constitution was written, the idea of owning arms and keeping them in the home was widespread. The colonists had just defeated the armies of King George III. The colonial weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle, while British soldiers used their army-issued version of Brown Bessies. Each rifle had its advantages, but the Kentucky (it was actually a German design, perfected and manufactured in Pennsylvania) was able to strike a British soldier at 200 yards, a startlingly long distance at the time. The Bessies were good for only about 80 yards.
Put aside the advantages we had of the passionate defense of freedom and homeland, to say nothing of superior leadership, it doesn’t take any advanced understanding of mathematics or ballistics to appreciate why we won the Revolution.
If somebody has an unaddressed hangnail somebody will take it as an argument for more government. Mass tragedies create an irresistible impetus for somebody, meaning the government, to do something. At the end of the article is a link to the El Paso shooter’s manifesto. From Paul Craig Robert at paulcraigroberts.org:
The unintended consequences of mass shootings and the attempts to use these shootings for various agendas can be far worse than the shootings themselves and ultimately endanger far more people.
I was listening to NPR this morning prior to President Trump’s 10 AM EST address on the shootings. NPR set Trump up for blame. Trump opposes illegal immigration and spoke of the 20,000 person caravan as “an invasion.” And so forth. And it wasn’t just NPR. As USA reported, while joining in the blame trump orchestration, “Media outlets around the country, and around the world, decried his [Trump’s] role in inspiring a shooter who gunned down 20 people.” US Rep. Veronica Escobar (D,TX) said: “All of this has happened because Hispanic people have been dehumanized. They have been dehumanized by the president, by his enablers, by other politicians.”
Rep. Escobar did not explain why and how a country’s defense of its borders constitutes dehumanization of those that the law requires to be kept out. Is the President of the United States, who is sworn to enforce the laws and Constitution of the US, supposed to violate the law? If the American people want open borders, they should inform their representatives and get a law passed that abolishes border controls. If Hispanics are dehumanized by being kept out, so are Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians, and Venezuelans, all people declared to be national security threats to the US which employs a massive armed force to be sure these threats don’t invade us. Just imagine how we dehumanized the Japanese and Germans during World War II by keeping them from invading us.
If political subdivisions can be sanctuaries against immigration law enforcement, why not sanctuaries against gun control and gun confiscation law? From Dagny Taggart at theorganicprepper.com:
Sanctuary cities aren’t just for immigrants anymore.
A growing number of states, counties, cities, and towns are declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” and are refusing to enforce gun-control laws that infringe on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
While adopting ordinances and resolutions to defy gun laws isn’t a new tactic, momentum is rapidly building – likely in response to increasing calls for more gun control at state and federal levels.
Sheriffs in several states say they will NOT enforce gun control laws.
Sanctuary counties and towns are passing resolutions that state no funding will be used to enforce unconstitutional laws and that the sheriff will uphold his oath to the Constitution instead of enforcing laws that violate the Second Amendment.
County sheriffs are, legally speaking, the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights:
Federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitution’s structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. (source)
Here’s a rundown of the states with jurisdictions that have adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions.
Don’t expect the Republicans to show any spine when it comes to protecting Second Amendment rights. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.org:
The House of Representatives recently passed legislation that would expand the national background check system to require almost everyone selling firearms, including private collectors who supplement their incomes by selling firearms at gun shows, to perform background checks on the potential buyers. The bill has a section purporting to bar creation of a national firearms registry. However, the expanded background check system will require the government to compile lists of those buying and selling guns. In other words, it creates a de facto national gun registry.
Similar to the experience with other types of prohibition, making it more difficult to legally buy a gun will enhance the firearms black market. Criminals, terrorist, and even deranged mass shooters will thus have no problem obtaining firearms.
It is no coincidence that the majority of mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones,” where shooters know their targets will be unarmed. This shows that any law making it more difficult for Americans to own and carry firearms makes us less safe. If Congress really wanted to reduce the incidence of gun violence, it would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act. This law leaves children easy prey for mass shooters by mandating that public schools be “gun-free zones.”
The structure of the United States is archaic. From Justin Murray at mises.org:
Recently, a dozen sheriffs in Washington State announced that they would refuse to enforce the newly passed referendum 1639 which raised the legal age of purchasing a firearm of any sort to 21, expanded background check requirements, increased the waiting period and mandated weapon storage when not in active use. Predictably, political proponents immediately threatened these sheriffs, who were hired to enforce county, not State, laws, with legal action. Of course, when I say passed, what I really mean is that 14 of 39 counties in Washington decided the referendum was a good idea.
Based on actual voting patterns, the victory of this particular bill can be almost entirely explained by the margin of victory in King County (506k), where Seattle is located, which accounted for 87% the margin of victory of the State-wide referendum (580k). This is a common phenomenon in many States that have a large single urban population. Another classic example is New York and the political dominance of the City in State-wide politics.
What the refusal of the 12 county law enforcement officials is doing is voicing displeasure with what amounts to a distant population dictating how they’ll operate in their own homes. Why are people in Seattle, who may never even set foot on the Eastern-side of the Cascades, let alone actually make that region their permanent home, imposing law on residents of Omak?
Duh! From Mac Slavo at shtfplan.com:
It took the United States government’s Department of Justice an entire study dedicated to gun use and criminals to figure out what logical human beings have already understood for decades. The result of their own study found that gun control laws will never work because criminals will never use legal channels to obtain guns.
According to Fox 5, the findings based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), discovered that about 1 in 5 or 21% of all state and federal prisoners reported they had “possessed or carried a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were serving time in prison.” The survey released by the DOJ this month declared that criminals unsurprisingly rely on the black market for their guns.
According to the study, an estimated 287,400 prisoners has possessed a firearm during their offense. The findings concluded 6 percent had stolen the weapon, 7 percent found it at a crime scene and 43 percent obtained it off the street or on the black market. More than 25 percent had received it from a family member or friend, or as a gift.
This is not the first time the government, democrats, and gun control zealots have been made to look the fool by their own study.
Gun-hating democrats who demanded a study into the sale of guns online were smacked with a dose of reality. They wasted two years attempting to buy guns illegally on the “dark web,” and the group of Democrats failed every single time.
Senator Elizabeth Warren joined with Senator Brian Schultz, D-Hawaii, and Representative Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, to commission the GAO report.
An embarrassing attempt to try to regulate guns further went horribly wrong when the Democrats took it upon themselves to try to skirt the law to prove it can be done. Over the course of the two-and-a-half year investigation, agents tried to buy firearms illegally on the “Surface Web” and the “Dark Web,” generally by sharing their status as “prohibited individuals” or trying to buy across state lines. –SHTFPlan
These studies prove nothing more than the government’s incompetence and unnecessary intervention in the lives of everyone else. Private gun sellers did more to prevent violent crimes than the government’s own laws did. The ruling class is continuing to prove they are no longer a necessary evil. Only 1.3 percent of all prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense, the DOJ’s study stated. Moreover, among the prisoners who possessed a firearm during their offense, “0.8 percent obtained it at a gun show.”