Gun Control – Objective Analysis and Historical Context

With all the talk of gun control, I thought it would be a good topic to address in detail. We have always recognized that there is a group of political elites that see an advantage in disarming the public. The tactics vary, but generally this involves invoking “safety,” “compassion,” or a bolder stance, meant to tug on heart strings “save the children.” Then there is the angle that may seem a little more palatable to a broader audience, mental illness. It is imperative, that we address red flag laws, and the “triggers” for such laws to be invoked. 

Let’s start with establishing a global perspective on gun control/confiscation and the subsequent effects on respective countries and society with. We will start with Cambodia, French protectorate as of 1893, that had gun control imposed on them in 1920, as the French, “restricted” the peoples’ ability to carry a firearm. These restrictions progressed, and in 1938 “a rigorous system of gun licensing” was implemented.  After incremental revocations of these gun rights, ”gun possession for self-defense, target-shooting, or collecting was banned” by 1953. France did this because they were worried about a rebellion.  They believed that this uprising would be a product of communists and anti-colonialists.  The French feared the people rising up against them, so they took away their right and ability to effectively defend themselves.  An unarmed society is a vulnerable, obedient society. Anything that is viewed as a threat to the ruling class’s authority, must be shut down.  It is an instinctive, defense mechanism that exists as a means of government self-preservation.

Jump to China, 1949, Mao Tse-tung disarmed the Chinese people, took control of the country and ruled with an iron fist. The Chinese government had weapons galore, which made the unarmed Chinese population vulnerable and unequipped to fight back. The Chinese people had their right of self-defense taken from them and they were murdered on a massive scale. World War II stirs up images in our minds of iconic places like Auschwitz and influential people like Adolf Hitler, and these things remind us of the evil that was perpetrated by Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler used control of private gun ownership to render Jews, and other enemies of the state defenseless. The Nazis were methodical in taking the guns of the people but they moved quickly in doing so. Targets of Hitler’s gun control were deemed “persons dangerous to security.” 

So there is a historical record to observe when it comes down to referencing the consequences suffered by the people when the government decides to take away this basic right of self-defense.  A more recent case study, Venezuela was once the wealthiest country in South America, due to its rich supply of oil.  Under President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela implemented the “Control of Arms, Munitions, and Disarmament Law,” as they aimed to “disarm all citizens.” This law took effect in 2013 and it had very little opposition at that time. Only the Venezuelan government would be permitted to own or possess firearms. Chavez Died in 2014 and his successor Nicolas Maduro continued Chavez’s policies and roughly 47 million dollars was spent enforcing this gun ban. The economic chaos that we now see in Venezuela, the starving people in the streets, the consumption of pets (cats and dogs) for food, and martial law in the streets. The country is now an economic disaster, led by a dictator that cannot be removed because the people have no means which to fight back.  Less than a decade after the confiscation of firearms, Venezuela went from the wealthiest in South America to a third world, poverty-stricken wasteland. 

Let’s look at a couple of things being proposed right now in Washington. First we have banning certain types of guns, which is vague because the politicians looking to regulate or ban what they call “assault weapons” is not being presented objectively as no one advocating for this type of ban can verbalized what constitutes an “assault weapon” for the purpose of singling out particular firearms. The best I can gather from their idea of assault weapons, is that it is the “scary looking” guns. This is obviously a ridiculous standard and those that have any knowledge of guns, recognize the absurdity of the classification of weapons using this subjective metric.

Another possibility regarding gun control legislation, is the notion that we have to recognize mental health issues and keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. While this may sound somewhat reasonable to an average, reasonable person, and might even be able to garner enough support to get 60 votes in the Senate, this is a dangerous proposition, and should not be an idea that we should entertain. You would be able to get enough RINOs together to vote for this one because, it is difficult for someone argue for disarming the mentally ill? This is where the progressives become extremely dangerous. They play word games and create a narrative that works out fine on paper but in practice, can be manipulated to carry out an agenda.

Let’s look at mental illness, what is it, and what defines it? As someone that has worked in a correctional setting and someone that has worked in the medical field, I can tell you that mental illness is not cut and dry. It is measured in degrees and two people with the same diagnosis can present very differently. The one that hands down the diagnosis here is king. We saw with Obamacare, Uncle Sam encouraging Doctors and other providers to share mental health diagnoses with the government if they thought in their “professional opinion” that a person was unfit to own a weapon. 

With Federal legislation to control guns, you can encourage doctors to rat on patients and use their professional status to justify it. Mental Illness and Psychiatry in general is not grounded in objectivity. If you diagnose one with paranoid schizophrenia, there is not a blood test or other qualitative metric that can be used to confirm. The diagnosis is given after studying the patient’s behavior, and then it is a judgement call. In the political realm, I have heard liberals claim that conservatives are mentally ill. I have witnessed conservatives say the same thing about liberals.  Mentally ill is subjective, and if we are prone to labeling those that think differently than us politically, mentally Ill, can’t we assume that these labels will be tossed around when deciding who gets to be armed, and who gets disarmed?

Lastly, if someone is mentally ill, you have that level of degrees. Is it at the level where this person is a danger to society? You can’t arrest someone unless they commit a crime. There is no such thing as a precrime. At least not one that can be subject to prosecution. If we start trying to detain people before the crime is committed, we dive head first into a dystopian minority report scenario.  Red flag laws that have been implemented in many states, revoke rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments including that of due process. When everything is said and done, I believe the more guns, the better.  The best answer to a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. That, and those four powerful words found in the Second Amendment, “Shall Not Be Infringed.”


Jason A Brown is 42 years old, a husband, father of one daughter, Practical Nurse of 13 years, and holds a B.A. in Criminal Justice/Homeland Security.  Jason also enjoys studying sociology, philosophy, constitutional law, politics, and history. 

Speak Your Mind

*