Why Do Gun Control Activists Ignore the Ability for Citizens to Defend Themselves?

It is clear that those who advocate for gun control differ significantly from those who do not in their stance on trust in the ordinary citizen. This article will delve into the reasons why gun control activists often ignore the ability of citizens to defend themselves.

Trust in Ordinary Americans

Those who distrust the average American citizen argue that armed individuals are irresponsible and cannot behave rationally under stress. This belief leads them to support disarming the general population while maintaining armed security forces. They prioritize public safety over individual rights, believing that an armed populace poses more danger than the right of individuals to defend themselves.

Opposition to Self-Defense

Gun control activists are often seen as opposing the concept of self-defense, which is viewed as the ultimate expression of individual autonomy. When a citizen defends themselves, it implies that the authorities have failed in their duty. This perspective requires personal responsibility and is seen as an affront to the idea that individuals should rely on the government for protection.

Class War Self-Reliance

The idea of class is not based on income or wealth but on mentality and attitude. Humans have evolved over eons into two basic categories: those who are dependent and subservient, and those who are independent and self-reliant. This division is rooted in historical and societal practices that have shaped human behavior.

In Medieval Europe, for instance, the relationship between lords and serfs illustrates this dynamic. Lords needed to keep their serfs reliant on them for protection, creating a system where individuals were dependent on authority figures. This mentality is prevalent in modern society, where individuals often clamor for government intervention in times of crisis, even if it comes at the expense of their liberties.

To someone with a middle-class mentality, the right to defend oneself is non-negotiable. This perspective is rooted in self-reliance and the belief that individuals should have the power to protect themselves without relying on external forces. This mindset poses a threat to those in power, who often prefer a subservient population.

The Impact of Disarming the Public

The disarming of the public has far-reaching consequences. When people are deprived of the ability to defend themselves, they become more vulnerable and dependent on the government. This only serves to strengthen the power of those in control and further marginalize those who advocate for self-reliance.

Gun control activists often overlook the fact that disarming the public is a deliberate strategy that has been used throughout history to maintain control and suppress independent thought. By stripping individuals of their weapons, they remove one of the most powerful tools for protection and freedom.

Conclusion

The ability of citizens to defend themselves is often ignored by gun control activists because it challenges the very notion of personal responsibility. While some may argue that this is necessary for the greater good, it is ultimately a strategy rooted in class warfare and the maintenance of power.