Keeping an eye on the red menace.

Local Presences

Guns, the Yardstick for Freedom

Posted on March 6, 2019

It has come to our attention that several counties in Illinois have become gun sanctuaries to hold back the far-left state’s anti-gun laws. This tactic has been adopted in other states, including New Mexico about a week ago. We’ll offer some remarks on this matter at the big picture level.

First, this is a struggle of rural versus urban. Rural areas don’t have the luxury of police being minutes away; they are more often tens of minutes away, and waiting the better part of an hour is not an option when seconds decide whether you live or die. Those who inhabit rural areas rely on armed self-defense as a matter of accepting reality; it is not an ideological position, but a practical one. Those who would disarm them offer them no acceptable alternative – who in his right mind would let the state force him to put his life in others’ hands? – and, even when they try to offer an alternative, the insist on disarming the rural population first, which will leave them with no leverage to ensure the alternative is actually delivered.

However, the real core of this issue is what guns represent. They represent the capacity to kill. They represent the potential that the people will rise up and exterminate their oppressors. So, then, gun rights are, whatever one may wish were the case, the central political issue. Officials who would oppress the populace must fear them if they are armed; officials who would not need not. So a shortcut appears in evaluating a candidate for office or state body of laws: where do they stand on your right to keep and bear arms?

A state on a trajectory toward less freedom must disarm its residents lest they reclaim their freedom by force; indeed, a state that disarms its citizens can only become less free, having taken away its residents’ leverage against it doing so. A state that safeguards its residents’ gun rights cannot become substantially less free without first accouncing its intention by attacking gun rights. And, similarly, an anti-gun politician, being the ultimate witness to his inner thoughts and beliefs, would not want to disarm anyone if he didn’t fear their resistance, whereas the pro-gun politician must account for the reality that the populace can overthrow his desired order if they find it intolerable. Your freedom can only be safe in the hands of pro-gun officials for this reason.

So, to summarize:

  • An attack on gun rights is an attack on all your other liberties. When the situation devolves to might makes right, the disarmed side loses every time.
  • A defender of gun rights is someone who will respect your liberty. Those who would take away your freedom will not make it easy for you to resist them.
  • A state with weak gun rights has a totalitarian infestation. Those laws didn’t make themselves.

We hope the gun sanctuary movement spreads to all fifty states and brings their unconstitutional anti-gun laws to be tested in courtrooms across the country. It represents a step toward more freedom, even for those who do not decide to own guns.