Gun control is a trap.

So after the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on terror, the war on a virus, you'd think that the public would be a bit more skeptical of the government's ability, or willingness, to regulate things for the common good. <br><br>You'd think that they'd view any group that advocates for restrictions on guns would be viewed similarly to the groups that advocated for the war on drugs/crime/terror/virus. But they're not. <br><br>The reason is pretty simple, really. The government is a violent institution. It's only real power is violence. It taxes because you obey at gun point. It has laws because you obey at gun point. It is only because it has a monopoly on violence that it can do the things it does. <br><br>Now, if the population is armed, then that monopoly is threatened, or at least it feels threatened. People aren't just going to let their institutions be destroyed, so they're going to do something about it in order to protect it. Pushing for gun control doesn't just help protect the institution, it helps protect the people in that institution. <br><br>If we look at the historical record, I think you'll find that my assertion is correct. With a couple of exceptions, every time a government was overthrown, it was because it didn't have a monopoly on violence. Either people were armed, or they would arm themselves once things got hot. Those institutions were powerless to stop it, because they were powerless against the people's force of arms. <br><br>Now, if you're armed, you're a threat. It's not a guarantee, but it's a possibility. The same would be true if you owned a nuclear bomb. Clearly states would feel threatened by that, so they would prevent you from owning it. The threat is of a vastly different magnitude, but really, that's it. It's about threat. <br><br>This is why the left hates guns so much. If you read the comments, you'll see that they honestly, truly believe that right-wingers are their enemy. If right-wingers are armed, they're a threat. That threat can only be removed if they're disarmed. I've read comments from leftists saying that "we need to disarm our enemies." <br><br>Again, if you read the comments, you'll see that they are their own worst enemies. They believe that a gun is a magical object that makes the owner want to murder people, so by removing the gun, you remove the threat. As far as I can tell, they don't understand that the threat was there in the first place, they just think that the gun provides the ability to act on that threat. <br><br>And they have a point. The gun does make it much, much easier to kill people. They're right there. But it's not the only reason for the threat. You would still be a threat if you owned a nuclear bomb, even if you had no intention of using it. Just as the government would still be a threat to you if you owned a gun, even if you had no intention of using it. <br><br>I think that's the main difference. Right-wingers just want to be left alone, so as long as you leave them alone, there's no threat there. In fact, they probably would help defend you from threats, if they could. If you're armed, it doesn't make them want to kill you. It's not a slippery slope into war. <br><br>Left-wingers, on the other hand, view right-wingers as their enemy. And if you're armed, you're a threat. So they want you disarmed, because that removes the threat. <br><br>So if you support gun control, you are being conned. The government is not your friend. It's only real power is violence. If you are armed, you are a threat to that institution. So it wants to disarm you, to remove that threat. <br><br>You are also being conned by people who want to disarm you for their own protection. If you're a leftist, you are still a threat to them. And if they're armed, you're a threat to them too. So they want you disarmed, to remove their own threat. <br><br>So gun control is a trap, because it removes the people's power from the social equation. It leaves only the institution. <br><br>If you support gun control, you don't deserve the rights you have.