There Isn't A Rifle Behind Every Blade Of Grass. That's The Way They Like It.

"They Already Have Them - What Are You Doing About It?"

When you're a conspiracy theorist like me, you start to look at everything as nefarious. A major news event happens? Coverup - something worse isn't being talked about. A business changes names? Wonder what documents they needed to burn first. Point is, there isn't any escape from the awful truth that, whatever it is, it could be much worse than it initially appeared, it likely is worse, and someone is likely benefiting from it.

We live in a highly manipulated world, and the rewards for being a puppetmaster are manifest. But sometimes, people don't connect the chains they tie to others to the collar on their neck. This is especially true of gun control advocates.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy, didn't actually say this...

But The impact of this fake quote is strong anyway. Hell, I've used it before, and too many times. Only so many times one can criticize someone's lack of using Google, while not using it oneself, until the pointed finger reverses direction.

That isn't what this post is about tho - this post is about people shredding the liberty of others, and not realizing their sacrifice of liberty at the same time. This is what gun control does. Whether it be a "modest suggestion" or a sweeping reform, any advocacy of such measures is an act of servile cowardice, in which the proponent claims the benevolence of government actors to be greater than the rationality of the individual, an absurdity on its face!

Beyond that, such policies ignore consequences. Most gun control advocates delude themselves into believing they represent beacons of reason in a murderous world, and that without such legislation, the floodgates would open, and the world would descend into Mad Max, the Wild West, or whatever other form of fictional mayhem they can dredge up. I agree people suck, but are they that bad? All signs point to no.

If most people are so murderous, then why had an all out insurrection against the state barring their weapon of choice from their possession not broken out decades ago? The answer should be obvious - people are bad, but not that bad... because that would also make them stupid.

If war happened, most people wouldn't fight, at least not right away. They'd stay indoors while enemy troops rolled downstreet, and hope "someone does something" about it. They'd delegate the responsibility of their own protection to their state representatives, random citizens, and the goodness of man (as oxymoronic as that is). Let's face it - most citizens have had nothing close to physical conflict, because they've been told from a very young age that violence is never an acceptable problem solver - providing you're private sector, that is. So most people, when they have a concern to vent, try to find solutions to whatever the given problem is by the least complicated route possible.

This isn't killing people.

That's why most people aren't in prison, which is where they would possibly end up if they... y'know... offed someone. So it's pretty clear that, even if people are Michael Myers under the surface, they aren't going to act on it, without a sharp change in circumstances. It should also be obvious by now what my next point is.

You don't need a gun to kill people.

This may seem like an obvious point, but it's a point nonetheless. According to the FBI, homicides wherein guns were the murder weapon accounted for 68% of all murders in 2011. But there's still that 32% of other ways, using a myriad of weapons, from bare hands and feet, to hammers and baseball bats (no, they don't kill more people than guns - propagandists BTFO). So what happens if you, say, ban all guns? Murderers gonna murder. It's just going to be 100% with non-gun weapons. Or will it? Because people who want to illegally kill people follow laws, right?

Obviously not. Criminalizing any gun won't mean it ceases to exist - it will simply mean there's a penalty for owning them, and some people will be will be willing to incur those penalties. Y'know. Criminals. At least, in a statist sense. And those criminals will have a significant tactical advantage over the law-abiding commoners. If they mean to break the law, in order to do harm, and there is not a police officer in every home, armed just as well as they are (impractical), the commoner will be totally unmatched.

The state does not meaningfully account for this in its decisions to restrict guns in one capacity or another, and in many cases, has shown itself to be totally removed from the costs of its policies. Upon the graves of countless innocents, gun-restrictive politicians grandstand, attempting to achieve moral superiority in exchange for better polling numbers. But does this kind of thing help there?

Plenty of guns have been purchased legally, then used for illegal purposes. Government law didn't stop those things from happening. Plenty of guns are purchased illegally, too - gun laws in Chicago didn't stop it from being a hub of murder. So what gun laws do is essentially a fundamental unleveling of the playing field for anyone following them, should those people ever come into contact with a criminal who shouldered the risk of breaking the law. And here's the crux. Maybe that's the point in the mind of gun restriction advocates.

Maybe they want the playing field uneven.

Think about it. These gun laws don't apply to the state. They can have whatever firearm they want, and they do. They can incrementally restrict which firearms average people can own, all while building up their arsenal, and increasing the thickness of all lawbooks, so they have increasing reasons to use them, should the average person steps out of line. And these laws give them more power, more authority, and more reach into citizens' everyday lives. Is it a coincidence? Really ask yourself that. And answer honestly.

So what if they make too many laws? Or the wrong law? What if they're oppressing us? What can we do? File a petition? Beg to our "benevolent" masters for a longer leash? Anyone who thinks that always works, raise your hand. Now, bring it quickly across your face, and snap out of it.

The playing field is not uneven so a street gangster can pay your house a visit in the middle of the night. It's not uneven to keep Jeremy from speaking in class. It's uneven so the government gangsters can oppress and extort us all in broad daylight, and so that we can do nothing about it. So if there was an invasion (hi, North Korea), we'd be powerless to defend ourselves, and would have to cede all authority and deference to the state to be our "humble protectors" and join their particular gang if we ever hoped to defend the homeland - assuming that's what they'd have us do, and assuming the invasion wasn't a false flag.

So the elites get to tell us what to do, and in the end, unless we're willing to do illegal things, we're in no way capable of standing our ground against them - exactly the corner they want us in.

So what do we do? Obviously, there's a fundamental overhaul needed, in terms of the way society works.

First, we need to demystify guns. They don't kill people, people do - and often those people are in government. Nothing more ironic than, say, leftists traditionally advocating government gun control, upset when a government agent controls a gun, and someone is murdered. But if someone has violent intent, no law is going to stop them from carrying that out any more effectively. Maybe the consequences of breaking it will, but in the end, maybe that's also the result of bogus anti self defense regulations. A topic for another piece, I'm sure. A gun is a tool, and it, like anything else, can be used for good, or nefarious purposes. It can be used to murder innocents or save them from the guilty. It can be used to enslave a people or liberate them. Invoking the worst images of their use, and then using those images to spur or endorse legislation will only serve to make those images more premonitions than fleeting thoughts.

Second, we need a government that is more afraid of the people than they are of it. Something something liberty. Right now, at current levels, the state looks down and scoffs at us, in our petty squabbles, fining children for selling lemonade, criminalizing filling in potholes, and gunning down civilians in record numbers, all while we bicker over statues and ignore their increasing power. They get bigger, and badder, pressing their boot ever more firmly against our neck. This not only has to stop, but it has to reverse. How it does that, I'll leave up to your imagination, for legality's sake.

Third, we must stop entrusting the historical record holders for murder - governments - to keep us safe. No matter what, this mindset will trend toward the state holding a monopoly on violence. Time and time again, when the state holds all the guns, they also hold the people's chains, and make no mistake... they already have your guns.

There are more solutions than this, and every situation is obviously different, but one thing should be patently clear by now: they want it this way, and we should not. It's up to us to make the future one we would like to live in, and one suitable to our progeny. That isn't going to happen while we outsource our personal defense to the government. We need to take responsibility for our own protection, and that of those we care about, and not give it all to goons with badges, on the dole of control freak, power-salivating politicians just looking for stances moderate enough to get re-elected.

Or, as Bill Buppert put it... "Drive a rifle, or ride a railcar. Your choice."

And sidenote - if you want the shirt that woman is wearing, be sure to check out my store on Teespring. Thanks in advance if you do, and for any upvotes, comments, and shares this post may get.