from The National Expositor

Many people do not know that the first man killed in an act of defiance during the revolutionary war was African American.

Crispus Attucks was the first of five people killed in the Boston Massacre in Boston, Massachusetts. He has been frequently named as the first martyrof the American Revolution and is the only Boston Massacre victim whose name is commonly remembered. He is regarded as an important inspirational figure in American history.

The documentary below, “No Guns for Negroes ” exposes the racist history of American gun control laws.

by Steve Watson

Related: Purging The Undesirables: ADL Attempts To Pin A Yellow Star On Grass Roots America

The Anti-Defamation League has published a fresh report directly targeting Alex Jones as an “extremist” and “The King of conspiracy”, lumping in the information contained on this website with the actions of racists and white supremacists.

There is, as usual, one major problem with the ADL’s report – it is devoid of any empirical fact and based entirely on the group’s desire to create the impression that huge swathes of politically disgruntled Americans are violent conspiratorial-minded bigots that they must expose and counter.

“With conspiracy talk-show host Alex Jones leading the way, one of the most disturbing trends in 2009 has been the resurrection and proliferation of some of the same anti-government conspiracy theories that so riled up domestic extremists in the 1990s.” the ADL writes.

The organisation defines three major issues as “conspiracy theories” that exist only in the mind of paranoid delusional extremists. They are:

• Imposition of Martial Law. The federal government is plotting to declare martial law in the near future as a way to strip Americans of their freedoms and institute the New World Order. The government may utilize or even manufacture a crisis, such as the swine flu epidemic, in order to have an excuse for imposing martial law.
• Gun Confiscation. The government is plotting to embark upon a massive program of gun confiscation, going door to door to take firearms away from American citizens so that they will be unable to resist the New World Order. Police, the military and even foreign troops may be used in the gun confiscation efforts.
• FEMA Concentration Camps. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has constructed hundreds of concentration camps in the United States, designed to hold “dissidents” and other American citizens following some imminent crackdown such as a declaration of martial law.

Let’s take each one of these topics and provide some much needed context that is sorely missing from the ADL’s slapped together hit piece.

With regards to martial law and the idea that a crisis could be used to impose it, the ADL should consider speaking with Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman of California’s 27th congressional district and Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Sherman has been a member of the House of Representatives since 1997 and also serves on the Committee on Financial Services along with Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whom the ADL ludicrously refer to in their report as “a far right icon”.

In early October 2008, Sherman told the House that he personally knew of several Congressional representatives who have said they were threatened with the prospect of all out martial law should they vote in opposition to the $700 billion bailout that was eventually passed just over one year ago.

“The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atmosphere is not justified.” Sherman stated.

“Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day, another couple of thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.” The Congressman continued.

A few weeks later, Senator James Inhofe named Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as the source of the threat of martial law. Inhofe revealed that Paulson made the threat during a conference call on September 19th, around two weeks before the legislation was eventually approved by both the Senate and Congress.

Congressman Brad Sherman and Senator James Inhofe, two extremist conspiracy theorists according to the ADL’s definition.

For years, Congress has operated under “martial law” provisions which force members to vote on legislation without having time to adequately read and review it.

In addition, the U.S. has been in a declared state of national emergency for over 8 years. During that time it has emerged in several officially released reports, FOIA acquired documents and leaked government memos that preparation and planning is in the works for martial law style scenarios.

Most recently Barack Obama declared a second national state of emergency with regards to the swine flu epidemic. A national emergency allows normal legal procedures regarding a certain issue to be sidelined, should the federal government deem it necessary. Yet to even suggest that might be a fact means you could be a mass murderer in the ADL’s eyes.

Perhaps the most well known threat of martial law came in 2003 from General Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central Command.

Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place, saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

The threat of martial law is real, even if the imposition of martial law is yet to become a reality, yet to the ADL it is “extremist” to point out these straight forward facts.

The second paranoid delusional theory according to the ADL is gun confiscation.

The ADL says it is an extremist’s fantasy that police and military could be used to confiscate guns in the wake of a national emergency. However, this is exactly what happened in New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina in 2005, as the following video comprised of news footage, eyewitness statements and police press conferences outlines:

Again, the threat of gun confiscation is real.

Legislation to impose unprecedented controls on gun ownership is real.

It was real when George W. Bush was president and it is still real now Barack H. Obama is president.

Over the last couple of years intense debate has raged over the very meaning of the second amendment as new gun laws have been legislated and passed.

I’m not an extremist for pointing this out, all I have done is read the newspaper.

The third “extremist conspiracy theory”, according to the ADL, is the existence of FEMA camps. An anti-government delusional or a real and pressing issue? Unlike the ADL, we will provide some evidence rather than what “someone wrote on a forum” to help you decide.

Recent Legislation introduced into Congress mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations.

The purpose of such facilities is to provide “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” the expansion of which under FEMA is codified under HR 645, otherwise known as the National Emergency Centers Act.

Ominously, the bill states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

The issue of containment camps re-gained national attention three years ago when it was announced that Kellogg, Brown and Root had been awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps will also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”

Following the story, first given wide attention by Prisonplanet.com, the Alternet website put together an alarming report that collated all the latest information on plans to initiate internment of political subversives and Muslims after the next major terror attack in the US.

The article highlighted the disturbing comments of Sen. Lindsey Graham, who encouraged torture supporting then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to target, “Fifth Columnists” Americans who show disloyalty and sympathize with “the enemy,” whoever that enemy may be.

It is important to stress that the historical precedent mirrors exactly what the Halliburton camp deal outlines. Oliver North’s Reagan era Rex 84 plan proposed rounding up 400,000 refugees, under FEMA, in the event of “uncontrolled population movements” over the Mexican border into the United States.

The real agenda, just as it is with Halliburton’s gulags, was to use the cover of rounding up immigrants and illegal aliens as a smokescreen for targeting political dissidents. From 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the “ADEX” list.

As recently highlighted by author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of close to one million “terror suspects” with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

Discussions of federal concentration camps are no longer the rhetoric of paranoid Internet conspiracy theorists, they are mainstream news.

Furthermore, a much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, has recently been updated and the revision details a “template for developing agreements” between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.”

The plan is clearly to swallow up disenfranchised groups like prisoners, immigrants and Muslims at first and then extend the policy to include ‘Fifth Columnists,’ otherwise known as anyone who disagrees with the government or exercises their Constitutional rights.

Respected author Peter Dale Scott speculated that the “detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law.”

Daniel Ellsberg, former Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense, called the plan, “preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters. They’ve already done this on a smaller scale, with the ’special registration’ detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo.”

Furthermore, In 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms toconstruct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz went public in 2003 with his contention that his county was set to be a location for one of the camps.

Furthermore, in May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA programwhich is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.

This program is continuing under the Obama administration with churches declaring that Barack Obama’s presidency is appointed by God and that Obama himself is “God’s minister”.

Of course, the authors of the ADL report will not thoroughly read this article. They will not check the links to mainstream news articles and official government documents.

They will simply take it as more evidence to use to smear Alex Jones, his readers and the truth community. They will continue to lump in patriotic Americans and freedom lovers everywhere with the activities of a minority of racists and psychopaths that they choose to highlight.

More and more people are uniting in protest against the erosion of liberty, embracing a peaceful revolution of information, their causes overlapping, whether it be anti-war protesters, those against the bailout of private offshore corporations or second amendment activists, the list goes on.

However, the ADL will continue to tell you that America is about to explode into a cess pit of violence, rage and hatred. The ADL will always tell you this because it has to, otherwise it will no longer have a purpose, it will no longer receive funding, and like any organization it will go out of business.

Once again, the anachronous ADL has proven that far from railing against discrimination and division, it is engaged in actively promoting and encouraging it by spreading libelous lies and concocting character assassinations in order to ensure its own survival.

by Michael Gaddy

I’m sure my environment while growing up had a great deal to do with my attitude towards the rights of a free people to own firearms. To me it has always been a no-brainer. From the simple act of providing for the defense of one’s life and property and the defense of those with whom we have a responsibility, to preventing criminals from enslaving us, it all seems to be so fundamental. Relinquishing of that right to those who seek domination and control over our very existence is absurdity squared. Yet, a great number of our population continues to believe the propaganda that we can and will be protected by the state. I totally understand the propensity of many to attempt, with intellectual facts, to change their minds. My life’s experience has taught me this is analogous to taking a knife to a gunfight.

If one is to enslave a people and get them to participate in the process, logical, cognitive discourse must be replaced with emotional claptrap. It must become all about how a person “feels” about a subject rather than how they view the subject intellectually. Everything in our society today, by design of course, is based on emotion. TV shows and movies are filled with heart rendering music and dialogue; 24-hour news networks ply the heartstrings with one emotional story after another. Public education is centered on emotions; that is why History has been replaced with Social Studies and Physics and Chemistry have been replaced with diversity studies and “green” everything. Facts must never get in the way of emotions if the state is to be properly served.

How else could the peoples of a country believe that one could atone for the mistreatment of a race over a century ago by punishing members of another race today, none of whom were alive when the persecution took place? How could the burning of a city and the killing of its inhabitants during the War for Southern Independence be looked upon as a crime while the burning of portions of an entire state and the rape and killing of its inhabitants be seen as morally acceptable? How, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, can a group of people believe the police can protect them from crime, when five minutes of the evening news in any metropolitan area proves the opposite? If one is to believe the propaganda of the state, one must never let facts get in the way; emotions must rule in all decisions.

Decades ago I labored under the belief that if I educated myself on facts, figures and statistics, I could debate those who believed in gun control and might even be able to convert some of them to the truth. I was puzzled and disappointed when my intellectual arguments made no impression at all with those who were even willing to discuss the subject. It was when I began to push the point with many of them that I saw the anger and emotions come bubbling to the surface. At the time I remember discussing this with my grandfather and can still hear his response in my mind: “Son, don’t try to make sense of people who don’t have any.” But, I still could not understand; many of the folks I had been debating were well educated. It was then I learned that being educated does not confer any degree of common sense.

Gun control advocates today generally fall into one of two groups. On the one hand are those who deal with the issue emotionally, while members of the other group have an agenda. Approaching members of either group with intellectual ammunition is a completely wasted effort. I saw the futility of discussing the issue with those who can only address the issue emotionally several years back. I was under contract to provide personal security for a group of software engineers and mathematicians from Europe as they were touring the American Southwest. Over dinner one night in Old Town Sacramento, the subject of discussion was the then recent events at Columbine High School. The consensus of the group was Americans must be mad to allow private citizens to own firearms. Although I did not bring up the subject, I relished the opportunity to provide these mathematicians, those who deal in absolutes and axioms, with facts and figures to support my case. One lady in particular was most vocal in her position and she and I eventually became the only two in the discussion, with the others seeming content to just listen. I felt that I was able to counter each point the lady made with facts and statistics proving her points to be incorrect or based on false assumptions. Finally, she said in frustration, “I don’t care how many facts and figures you present, you are never going to change my mind.” We have all encountered this mindset. Any attempts to reach these folks with the truth will always prove fruitless. Do not continue to waste your time.

This is the problem we face in not only gun control but in many other facets of the quest for liberty. The indoctrination embraced by the public schools, the media, and of course politicians, has taken many people into the abyss of situational ignorance. The other group, those with an agenda, is also easy to identify. Most of these are politicians or employees of government. If they advocate openly their belief that only the police and military should be armed, they are criminals, plain and simple, and should never be trusted on any issue. Those who seek to justify their criminality with some humanitarian approach are simply criminals who want their crimes to appear less invasive and therefore justified. They, too, are to never be trusted on any issue. Many times you will encounter employees of the government who will simply avoid any direct answer to questions concerning their oaths or their willingness to follow orders when those orders are criminal in nature. An answer such as “that will never happen” is simply an avoidance of admitting they will do whatever they are told to do because their paycheck depends on it. Put these folks on your enemies list as well.

Patriots and gun rights advocates, please stop sending your hard-earned money to gun rights groups who exist solely to lobby those in power to do that which they have sworn a sacred oath to perform. If someone, after taking such an oath, has to be wined and dined, taken on junkets, or in other ways influenced into doing that which they swore an oath to do, they too are your enemy. They are nothing but political whores selling themselves, your rights, and their country to the highest bidder. Eventually, someone will offer them more money than the gun rights folks can afford to match. Can you imagine paying your minister to stop pursuing your wife, molesting your children, or paying your neighbor to not break into your house? Anyone who must be paid to do that which is right will at some point be paid more to do that which is wrong. Support only those who will not compromise on basic rights. Others are living high on your money and have consistently supported compromises of your basic human rights. Also, look at their results; after collecting untold millions, are our rights more or less secure? Never fall for the old socialist argument of “look how much worse it could have been had we not been here.”

Those who advocate gun control as a means of enslaving the people will never be influenced by an intellectual argument, presentation of facts and figures, or a simple plea to do that which is right. Those who are influenced into making decisions based on their emotions are now being motivated by a stronger emotion: fear, the fear that what we have been telling them for years is true. Countless thousands of folks who previously did not own a gun, have been purchasing guns and ammo at a record pace. Actions by this criminal government have awakened some of the sheeple where our intellectual arguments have failed.

Don’t waste your time, money or efforts on “educating” those who believe in gun control. This criminal government is doing it much better than we ever could.

by Massad Ayoob

It has become increasingly politically incorrect to be a firearms owner. This is because trends tend to be set by the fashionable and the media-connected in metropolitan environments. Gun ownership per capita is well under 50% in urban areas of this country. Nationwide, it is estimated that one half of all homes contain at least one firearm. As the demographics move into rural areas, gun ownership well exceeds that 50% margin, and on the frontiers and in the true backwoods home, gun ownership will generally be found to reach the 90th percentile of the population.

When your beliefs and values are challenged, you want ready answers. The following have worked for me when debating the civil rights of gun owners in this country.

• Isn’t the Second Amendment about the National Guard? Frankly, no. Serious legal scholars have almost universally agreed that the Second Amendment speaks to the rights of the citizens, not the rights of the states or other communities. Doesn’t it seem incongruous that the Framers would have written one states’ rights amendment into a Bill of Rights that otherwise speaks entirely to the rights of individuals?Besides, consider that the document in question was written at a time when the gunfire of the American Revolution was still ringing in the ears of the Framers. A “national guard” of the period would have been Tories loyal to King George, hardly an entity the freedom fighters who wrote the Bill of Rights would have wanted to empower.

  Historically, you’ll also find that the constitutions written by the separate colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights spoke of firearms ownership specifically as an individual right encompassing personal protection, and not just a tool to facilitate state militias.

• Isn’t a gun just a phallic symbol? If it was, no man would ever have bought one with a two inch barrel.
• What about the argument that people die in domestic arguments because a gun is within reach of an angry person? Certainly, those with uncontrollably violent tendencies should not own guns. When asked this question, I always respond with a question: “Could you pick up a gun and kill someone you love because they angered you?”If the answer is No, I reply, “Then how dare you imply that I, and everyone else, would be that unstable?” If the answer is Yes, I suggest they stop attempting to counsel well-adjusted people and immediately seek psychiatric counseling for their own self-admitted tendency toward acting out impulses of uncontrollable violence.
• Won’t criminals just take your self defense gun and shoot you with it instead? That has happened, but rarely. It occurs more often with police, whose openly worn service handguns come quickly to the mind and the hand of the high number of criminals they face in the course of their work. If you’re worried about it, take a course in handgun retention, the art and science of defeating a physical disarming attempt. Most of this training is limited to cops, but private citizens can take such classes on the East coast from LFI (1-800-624-9049) or on the West coast from Firearms Academy of Seattle (1-800-FAS-AMMO).
• How can one morally keep a lethal weapon when the Fifth Commandment states, “Thou shalt not kill?” That’s not what it actually says. Biblical scholars seem unanimously agreed that in the original Hebrew, the commandment said, “Lo Tirtzah, Thou shalt not commit murder,” i.e., thou shalt not kill with evil intent.This is not an exclusively Judeo-Christian ethos. The Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon all make it clear that there are times when it is both justifiable and necessary for the good to use lethal force against the evil. Provisions for justifiable homicide have existed in every body of law in the history of civilized Man: the Code of Hammurabi, the Napoleonic Code, the English common law, the Dutch-Roman model. From communist nations to capitalist, from the First World to the Third, it has been universally understood that every human being has the right to use lethal force against any individual who unlawfully threatens their life or limb with killing or crippling intent.
• Don’t all the police favor gun control? No. A number of high profile police chiefs have espoused gun banning schemes, but they’re usually mouthing the platforms of the politicians who appointed them, and in whose good graces they must stay if they don’t want to be demoted back to Captain, usually the highest rank protected by civil service laws. In rural areas, polls show, most police chiefs and sheriffs support citizens’ rights to be armed against violent criminals. Polls of working street cops routinely show the overwhelming majority favor the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Indeed, most cops make sure there’s a gun at home with their significant other for family protection while they’re at work.

There isn’t space here to go into all the specious arguments used by those who would take from you your right to own firearms if you choose. If you find yourself debating the issue, many publications of the Second Amendment Foundation will give you ample ammunition. You can call them for information on literature and membership at (206) 454 7012, or write SAF, 12500 N.E. Tenth Place, Bellevue, WA 98005.

by Wilton D. Alston

“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” ~ George Mason

Rather than keep the reader guessing until the end, I’ll answer the question that heads this essay right now, before I go any further. Absolutely, positively, without question, without qualification, the answer is, “Yes!” If you don’t need further convincing or want to get back to an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” please consider yourself excused. (It is, easily, one of the funniest shows on all of TV. I understand completely.)

A number of events conspired to cause me to examine this issue. In the aftermath of my most recent essay on Plaxico Burress and his bogus conviction for shooting himself, I received quite a bit of positive feedback. One of the most interesting pieces came from a representative of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. JFPO has produced a movie entitled, “No Guns for Negroes.” It is one of the most poignant and informative pieces on this subject. (On a personal note, I had not felt the visceral anger that this film engendered in a long time. My emotional state when I first finished reading, “Twelve Years a Slave” was close, though. I will try to not let my emotions spill over into this essay, but I can’t make any promises.)

The Issue, True and False

I’ve heard a disturbingly-large number of people make the following statement. “Plaxico Burress was dumb!” as a way to, apparently, justify his treatment. One person even remarked that Plax deserved to be in jail for being so stupid. (I reckon that was a joke; nevertheless, further editorial comments strewn with curse words redacted.) Frankly, I have no clue if Plax Burress is intelligent or not. I also don’t know what his favorite flavor of ice cream might be. Both those tidbits have equal relevance to the issue of gun control generally and what happened to him specifically.

More important though is this. Intelligence tests have a long and storied history in the quest of the State to keep the black man firmly in his place. If people really wonder if a victim of draconian statist violence masquerading as law and order is “smart” or not – and think that issue matters one iota – then the descendants of the racist bastards who initially conspired to strip black folk of the ability to defend themselves can proclaim “Mission Accomplished” and put another shrimp on the barbeque.

The fact of the matter is this: Dating back to the Antebellum South and beyond, the State has enacted lawsspecifically designed to keep black folk unarmed. This is not debatable, nor a matter of perspective. It is a matter of fact. The jailing of Plaxico Burress should not be viewed as an isolated event, simply the fallout of a careless high-profile citizen. It is the fruit of a racist tree planted in 18^th century America, a tree that continues to bear fruit even in 2009. Consulting a paper on the racist history of gun control in Georgia produced by GeorgiaCarry.org, one finds this informative quote from Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford commenting on the practice of developing seemingly race-neutral gun control laws that – in reality – selectively applied only to blacks:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and sawmill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.

You can’t ask for more honesty than that. But, you may ask, how can I draw a similar conclusion about the laws of the City of New York? Isn’t it clear that people like Mayor Bloomberg are genuinely concerned about the safety of all citizens? No. Hell no. How do I know? Let us examine another large U.S. city, Chicago, IL.

Disarmed Negroes, Not Just Fun During Slavery

In a piece entitled, “Chicago, gun control, and racism” we find this nugget:

Between 2000 and 2006, Chicago, home of the handgun ban, saw an [sic] handguns comprise a 43.2% larger portion of all homicides, increasing from 55.5% to 79.5% of all homicide methods. Firearm usage increased 24.7%, from 65.6% to 81.8% of all homicide methods. …Meanwhile, for the rest of Illinois, firearm usage decreased 16.0%, from 72.3% to 60.7%. (Handgun data not available.)

What does this mean? It means in the City of Chicago, where draconian gun-control quite similar to that of New York City exists, crime has increased. Not only that, but the crime has increased selectively in black neighborhoods. (You’ll have to read the whole article to glean that tidbit.) Wouldn’t that mean that one should do more to disarm criminals? If it were possible to disarm criminals selectively – and only in that event – such an obvious conclusion might make sense. Of course, such selective disarmament is nigh impossible. A better approach – an approach grounded in logic – is reflected by three points I made in an essay from quite a while back. That essay attempted to speak to anarchy, but the points I made relate directly to why widespread ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens must necessarily drive violence down. This issue is important enough that I’ll restate those points in their entirety here:

1. The fog of war is preserved.

The primary result of any coercively implemented government attempts at disarming evil people is the disarmament of law-abiding citizens. Gun-control advocates, like those mentioned by Richard Poe in “The Disarming of Black America,” seem to believe that an authoritarian crackdown on having firearms will reduce violence by making everyone equal, i.e., equally unarmed. The fact of the matter is this can never, ever happen. The example of Kennesaw, GA provides a direct proof of the falsity of this premise. Cesare Beccaria, a legal theorist from the 1700′s (who some believe greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson), explains why with this unassailable logic.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.

Stated differently, those who respond to laws, such as turning-in unregistered weapons, are, by definition, law-abiding citizens. They are not the ones about whom we have to worry! Those who have no plan to obey the laws are unimpressed by such pleas. Worse yet, they expect that those they hope to prey on will respond to such requests. As a result, they know that their victims are unarmed. Few things can embolden a person who has the tendency to aggress against another like knowing for a fact that he is safe to do so.

2. The argument from morality is honored.

One of the underlying assumptions in every environment where citizens have been disarmed via state coercion is that certain people, and only these people, are qualified and empowered to partake in certain practices. For example, the police are always armed. No one in his right mind would suggest otherwise. What objective moral criterion makes a policeman different than a regular citizen in this regard? Is it the uniform? Unlikely – uniforms provide no qualification in and of themselves. Is it the training? No – anyone can be trained. Is it via the consent of the governed? No – I am unqualified and unable to bestow a right away that I do not have.

Stated hypothetically, I cannot reasonably suggest that an acquaintance of mine (call him “Bob”) can have a gun, while simultaneously requiring that another acquaintance (call him “Rob”) cannot be armed. What is different about the police, and who made it so? Bob, Rob, and I are of the same species, sharing the same natural rights and privileges, and endowed with the same frailties. Only mysticism or irrationality can justify my elevation of one or the other to a status that we each cannot obtain on our own. (As an aside, some may recognize this quality of anarchy as a direct – but somewhat simplified – restatement of the concept of universalizability.) Whatever one prefers to call it, the same conclusion can be drawn.

3. The opportunity cost for violence remains appropriate.

When a criminal knows his victims are unarmed, his opportunity cost for violence is artificially lowered. Furthermore, and maybe more importantly, when those ostensibly authorized to “serve and protect” know that they – and only they – can inflict “lawful” violence upon others, they have a tendency to overreact when faced with a choice to use violence. Each time we hear about a citizen being shot multiple times by groups of police, or policemen actually breaking the law by selling drugs or other contraband, this truism is fully illustrated. Yet, when no one has an advantage – and generally only then – everyone is enticed to act accordingly.

When I was a kid, although there were occasional fights, most of them amounted only to shoving matches. Often, even the most ardent emotional dispute would end up with two kids staring each other down face-to-face and nothing more. Thinking back upon these “interactions,” the simple wisdom of one of our sayings about them strikes me. We would often say to anyone watching one of these staring matches, “One of them is scared and the other one is glad of it!” That, sports fans, is the essence of appropriate opportunity cost. Basic logic dictates: if you know you’re going to have to pay for the aggression, you are generally slower to take part in it.

Anyone who thinks the opportunity costs for criminals looking to act out violently in Chicago is not reduced by widespread citizen disarmament is sadly, and cataclysmically, mistaken. (If recent biting essays from Will Grigg on the tendency of law givers to infringe upon their subjects don’t convince you that opportunity costs, not only for criminals, but also ostensive law-enforcers, affect behavior, I don’t know what will.)

A Psychological Perspective and a Historical One

When a buddy of mine read the essay from which the above three points were taken, he remarked to me that the terminology, “fog of war,” made him uncomfortable. Thinking of our society as a place where war between citizens is a constant possibility should make one uncomfortable. Here’s the important point, stated as an equation: Being Armed <> Being Violent. Being armed is not equivalent to being violent. In fact, exactly the opposite is true of the vast majority of citizens. However, and this is where it gets dicey, those who wish to infringe don’t really care that much about being peaceful. Quoting myself from yet another essay on the Right to Bear Arms:

Have you ever met a bully? Almost everyone can remember that kid back in high school who took advantage of the nerds and/or the weaker kids. Generally, he was bigger, but not surprisingly – if you understand his pathology – this guy never accosted the kids who could readily defend themselves. Why? Bullies are cowards…Gun-free zones – and any other places where people are known to be less able (or less willing) to defend themselves – tend to attract bullies and/or psychos.

No one should be worried about peaceful citizens becoming psychotic Rambo-clones the instant they obtain a gun – at least no one who rationally thinks about this. Everyone should be concerned about losers who want to infringe upon you knowing they can do so without the threat of specific, immediate, response. (As bad as it might sound, I wonder ifDerrion Albert would still be alive today if he had been toting a burner. We’ll never know.) One more example from history seems appropriate. This comes from a Wikipedia article on United States v. Cruikshank. To wit:

On Easter Day 1873, an armed white militia attacked Republican freedmen who had gathered at theColfax, Louisiana courthouse to protect it from a Democratic takeover. Although some of the blacks were armed and initially defended themselves, estimates were that 100–280 were killed, most of them following surrender, and 50 were being held prisoner that night.

In the aftermath of the massacre, two of the shooters were indicted. (Two? Sure, the law can protect a brother!) After a series of appeals and all the normal constitutional grandstanding and precise reading, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions. Furthermore, the Court ruled, essentially, that the laws of the nation did not apply in the case of individuals infringing upon one another. Quoting directly, “The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.” I actually agree with that statement. What troubles me, however, is how that ruling was used to allow for paramilitary groups to attack blacks with impunity. Returning to the article, we find:

In the short term, blacks in the South were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments, who did little to protect them…The Cruikshank case effectively enabled political parties’ use of paramilitary forces.

Conclusion

I don’t want to shoot anyone, and, honestly, I never have. I agree wholeheartedly with whoever first uttered the powerful phrase, “There is no way to peace; peace is the way.” I don’t expect that many who are reading this essay feel differently. That said, when and if someone attempted to infringe directly upon me, I suspect I’d feel way better being able to defend myself versus having the legislature (or the cops) on speed dial. Your safety and freedom is your responsibility. It always was. It always will be. This sentiment is expressed more eloquently in a piece entitled, “76 Reasons to Have a Gun” with “a right exercised is a right retained.” Those who endeavor to take the ability to defend that safety and freedom away from you do not have your best interests at heart. They never did.