By Douglas V. Gibbs
Every time a tragic shooting occurs, a predictable chorus rises from the political left demanding more gun control. This reaction represents what the Bible describes as the “wicked heart” that jumps to conclusions without considering the full reality of our world. The fundamental flaw in this thinking is the assumption that we live in a static world where outlawing guns would actually reduce violence rather than simply shifting its form.
I witnessed this flawed thinking firsthand during a confrontation with a political opponent during President Trump’s first term. After he delivered his standard anti-gun rhetoric, I asked if he believed in gun control. When he affirmed, I pressed further: “You think that someday all guns should be confiscated from the public?” He agreed, adding, “We need to protect the children.” As I continued, “So you would be fine if all guns held by the public at this moment were confiscated,” he nodded enthusiastically – until I added, “so that only the Trump government has guns.” Suddenly, he fell silent, his animated demeanor replaced by thoughtful hesitation.
And that, my friends, is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of gun control advocacy.
History repeatedly demonstrates that making something illegal doesn’t stop its use. Prohibition didn’t stop alcohol consumption; it actually encouraged it while empowering organized crime. The war on drugs hasn’t stopped drug usage, and the war on poverty hasn’t eliminated poverty – both problems have worsened despite government intervention.
This doesn’t mean the solution lies in the opposite extreme. Oregon’s experiment with drug decriminalization, for instance, devolved into such an epidemic that lawmakers reversed those policies. The reality is that simplistic solutions to complex problems rarely work as intended.
The major advantage of having guns in the hands of the public became evident in my conversation with that opponent. If the people don’t have guns, the government still will. When the government possesses firearms and the people don’t, what happens when tyrants seize control of the halls of government? Criminals will always obtain weapons – if not guns, then knives or other instruments of violence. Do we then confiscate all knives? Require hand coverings to prevent people from using their fists? The problem isn’t the weapon but the character of the person wielding it.
Several important truths emerge from this understanding:
- Guns are valuable tools for defense, hunting, and recreation
- When the public owns guns, the government thinks twice before acting tyrannically
- When criminals worry about armed resistance, they redirect their activities toward softer targets
- When everyone might be armed, potential assailants face a precarious situation
The Founding Fathers understood these truths and studied history carefully. When Rome transformed into an empire, it implemented strict weapon regulations – banning private arsenals and restricting where arms could be carried. Within Rome’s sacred boundaries (the pomerium), carrying military-grade weapons was illegal. Roman authorities regularly disarmed conquered peoples, provincial peasants, and slaves to prevent uprisings. As the Roman and Byzantine Empires became more centralized, emperors like Justinian strictly regulated weapon manufacturing and sales to citizens. The more centralized the government became, the more tyrannical and restrictive it grew.
During America’s Revolutionary Period, the war began partly because British troops marched toward Concord specifically to confiscate firearms and ammunition. Throughout modern history, every tyrannical system has confiscated guns, if not universally, at least from the groups they feared most. Taking guns away from citizens is a surefire way to protect government from accountability, allowing it to act without threat of resistance.
The Founding Fathers left no doubt about their views on an armed citizenry:
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…” – Thomas Jefferson
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…” – James Madison
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…” – St. George Tucker
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” – Zachariah Johnson
The Second Amendment was never primarily about hunting or sport shooting. It was conceived as a safeguard against tyranny. The final check on governmental power. The Founders understood that liberty requires constant vigilance and that the right to bear arms serves as the ultimate guarantor of all other rights.
The contemporary debate over “reasonable” gun restrictions misses the constitutional point entirely. The Founders didn’t view firearm ownership as a privilege to be regulated but as a natural right to be protected. Any discussion of gun control that begins with “what restrictions are reasonable” has already abandoned the originalist position.
The preservation of liberty ultimately depends not on court rulings or legislation but on the American people’s unwavering commitment to the principles of armed self-defense and resistance to tyranny. As history demonstrates, once we concede the principle that the government may regulate our right to self-protection, we have begun the slow retreat toward subjugation.
The choice is precisely what Jefferson described: dangerous freedom or peaceful slavery. The originalist position is clear. We choose freedom, with all its dangers, over the false security of an unarmed populace subject to the whims of those who govern.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
