People who own or want to own guns can be split into three categories.
- People who like guns.
- People who feel that they need guns.
- People who feel that it is a right to have guns.
The categories often blur. There are rogues and malcontents in the streets who don't hold onto any faith that the police will help them as they hustle to get by, who carry whatever weapons they feel are necessary to get them through the night regardless if they have a criminal record or not. Those who simply like guns might collect some gun ownership polemics from their politically minded friends, but they ultimately don't stick their necks out to get into arguments about the logic behind defending oneself the way their gun-rights oriented peers will, who often attempt to persuade people away from the very opinions which give them a high degree of social capital (or those opinions which, to use a Joshua Cohenism, grant one the opportunity to have sex with girls who wear glasses).
It is, about ninety-five percent of the time, completely pointless to argue with people about gun bans. Yes, you might win one over to a favorable position now and again. You might get someone to bite onto the insipid sentiment that our forefathers foresaw a day that the people would need some kind of meta-law which trumps all others, and which allows them, by legal right, to defend themselves. Yes, now and again you'll be able to crack through that delicate eggshell of a liberal sensibility and get them to understand that illegal guns would still be on the street were there a ban. You might even get someone to understand that the United States government is no more permanent than any other empire, and that it will do anything it can to maintain its power just as all empires do, even if that means enslaving and ghettoizing everyone that it considers a problem. In most cases, you'll just end up typing in all caps, yelling yourself blue in the face, or pounding your forehead with your hand hard enough to leave a small, Europe-shaped red mark, and that is because there is a fundamental root to this disagreement most people overlook: the Left is expressing their ideology in a perfectly consistent manner on this issue.
I'm not saying they aren't smug, childish, churlish, overwrought, over-educated, jealous and resentful. I'm not saying they aren't cult-like, crowdish and cowardly. I'm merely saying that there are no real incoherencies in their demands when you work past the initial layers. The first mistake most non-Leftists make when evaluating their behaviors and mindsets is that they assume that, because the Left ascribes to itself an ethical and logical foundation, that they are starting from the same sets of principles and logical precepts as non-Leftists. This isn't true. They are their own culture. They might as well be a sort of viral, perennial nation which transcends borders and peoples. They have a completely different way of obtaining, appropriating, interpreting and distributing information. Funny enough, I would say that they are far more capable of carrying out the final conclusions of their theoretical destruction since they possess an ideology which is strong enough to smash through documents like the United States Constitution, even if all the arguments in its favor are elucidated in a cogent, unambiguous manner.
Conservatives often reveal what is hiding in plain sight and what they would do best to adopt themselves when they say of the Left, 'They don't believe in America or what it stands for!'
When it comes to the Left's ever more frenzied call for gun bans or tighter gun regulation every time a shooting happens, their ultimate goal is power. It's not that they're too stupid to comprehend your well thought out argument about the nature of sovereignty, what the initiation of force is or how exactly things would work out if gun ownership became illegal full stop - it's simply that they don't care.
Leftism is, by nature, a criminal ideology. They believe, fundamentally, that crime is the result of injustices brought about by power disparities. The power-imbalance narrative will always take different forms depending on what particular manifestation of Leftism you're dealing with. Marxists will interpret it economically. Liberals will appeal to sentiment. The bureaucrats and politicians who handle the democratic process and keep the mobs at once stimulated, satiated and outraged will appeal to everyone's fears by creating counterfeit enemies and endless wars on fake problems. But at the core of it, no matter which particular genre you're dealing with, is the hatred of the proverbial king; a sort of metaphysical seat of concentrated power. Nowhere is the very spirit, the very life's blood of Leftism more evident than in Robespierre's famous speech on the notion of trying King Louis XVI:
'Citizens, without realizing it the Assembly has been lead far from the true question. There is no trial to be conducted here. Louis is not accused and you are not judges. You are, as you can only be, the nation's statesmen and representatives. No verdict is required, either for or against a man. Rather, a step aimed at the public safety needs to be taken, an act of salvation for the nation. In a Republic a deposed king is good for only one of two things: He either disrupts the peace of the state and weakens its freedom, or he strengthens both simultaneously. I assert that the nature of the deliberations to date are directly at odds with this latter goal. In fact, what rational course of action is called for to solidify a newborn Republic? Is it not to etch an eternal contempt for royalty into everyone's soul and mute the King's supporters? . . .
Louis was the King, and the Republic is established. The vital question that occupies you here is resolved by these few words: Louis has been deposed by his crimes. He denounced the French people as rebels, and to punish them he called upon the arms of his fellow tyrants. Victory and the people have decided that he alone was the rebel. Consequently, Louis cannot be judged. Either he is already condemned, or else the Republic is not absolved. To suggest that Louis XVI be tried in any way whatsoever is to regress toward royal and constitutional despotism. A proposal such as this, since it would question the legitimacy of the Revolution itself, is counterrevolutionary. In actuality, if Louis can still be brought to trial, he might yet be acquitted. In truth, he is presumed innocent until he has been found guilty. If Louis is acquitted, what then becomes of the Revolution? If Louis is innocent, all defenders of liberty are then slanderers. . . .
Citizens, defend yourselves against tyranny! False ideas have deceived you. . . . You are confusing the state of a people in the midst of a revolution with the state of a people whose government is firmly established. You are confusing a nation that punishes a public official while maintaining its form of government with a nation that destroys the government itself. . .
When a nation has been forced to resort to its right of insurrection, its relationship with the tyrant is then determined by the law of nature. By what right does the tyrant invoke the social contract? He abolished it! The nation, if it deems proper, may preserve the contract insofar as it concerns the relations between citizens. But the end result of tyranny and insurrection is to completely break all ties with the tyrant and to reestablish the state of war between the tyrant and the people. Tribunals and judiciary procedure are designed only for citizens. . . .
Insurrection is the real trial of a tyrant. His sentence is the end of his power, and his sentence is whatever the People's liberty requires.
The trial of Louis XVI? What is this trial if not an appeal from the insurrection to some tribunal or assembly? When the people have dethroned a king, who has the right to revive him, thereby creating a new pretext for riot and rebellion and what else could result from such actions? By giving a platform to those championing Louis XVI, you rekindle the dispute between despotism and liberty and sanction blasphemy of the Republic and the people . . . for the right to defend the former despot includes the right to say anything that sustains his cause. You reawaken all the factions, reviving and encouraging a dormant royalism. One could easily take a position for or against. What could be more legitimate or more natural than to everywhere spread the maxims that his defenders could openly profess in the courtroom, and within your very forum? What manner of Republic is it whose founders solicit its adversaries from all quarters to attack it in its cradle?
Representatives, what is important to the people, what is important to yourselves, is that you fulfill the duties with which the people have entrusted you. The Republic has been proclaimed, but have you delivered it to us. You have yet to pass a single law deserving of that title. You have yet to reform a single abuse of despotism. Remove but the name and we have tyranny still, with even more vile factions and even more immoral charlatans, while there is new tumultuous unrest and civil war. The Republic! And Louis still lives! And you continue to place the King between us and liberty! Our scruples risk turning us into criminals. Our indulgence for the guilty risks our joining him in his guilt.
Regretfully I speak this fatal truth Louis must die because the nation must live. Among a peaceful people, free and respected both within their country and from without, it would be possible to listen to the counsel of generosity which you have received. But a people that is still fighting for its freedom after so much sacrifice and so many battles; a people for whom the laws are not yet irrevocable except for the needy; a people for whom tyranny is still a crime subject to dispute, such a people should want to be avenged. The generosity which you are encouraged to show would more closely resemble that of a gang of brigands dividing their spoils.
I propose that you take immediate legal action on the fate of Louis XVI. . . . I ask that the National Convention state that from this moment on he is a traitor to the French nation and a criminal against humanity. I ask that for these reasons, that in the very place where the martyrs of liberty gave their lives on the tenth of August, he be made an example for the world. And I ask that this memorable event be consecrated by a monument that will nurture in the hearts of all people a sense of their own rights and a horror of tyrants, as well as nurture in any tyrant's soul the salutary terror of the people's justice.'
An entire ethical and moral sensibility based on the hatred and jealousy of power. It was not enough to turn all of 'mankind' into the proverbial seat of power... It was not enough to turn the king back into a man, one citizen in this fraternity of mankind which could be tried as someone no better or worse than a high profile criminal... No, he himself had to be sacrificed in order to ensure the absolute authority of the people. He had to become an example to the world that the destiny of concentrated power was to become diffuse through an act of violence... The hive mind reigned. The nation state was born. If Pontius Pilate were there to question them on the nature of their perceived sense of justice, they certainly would have beheaded him too. Is that not the message? That no power will be allowed its platform?
Though it was granted that those men and women could enjoy liberty, equality and fraternity who would only accept that their own 'rights' could only be distinguished antonymously from 'tyrants,' tyrants would be chased into the furthest reaches of consciousness, taking on all new forms like the bourgeoisie, capitalism, and further on down to the very nature of power itself, so that we arrive in the twenty-first century with a Left which not only hates tyrants, but hates the very idea of a logocentric schematic in our patterns of communication.
But because this logocentric power is so embedded into the very order of things, since they can't rightly escape from rationality itself using rationality, they reify symbols of power which they feel best constitute or represent the abstract tyrannies they blame for their recreational and moral victimhood. They find more enemies in the form of ever new and ever present oppressors who will never go away, since this enemy is in fact life itself, in which the signature of the logos reveals itself in all things. Robespierre, perhaps, didn't know that by advocating for the death of the king, he was symbolically advocating for the death of rationality.
Let the acephalic society and its contemporaneous headless king stand for us here as a symbol of just what happens to any and all things which the Left on whole portends to be the problem. One can always count on the Left to kill the symbol and its symptom far too long after the underlying problem has taken root eons before.
Gun violence is only the symptom of a larger problem. Our civilization faces instability on such a massive level because this whole demiurgic scale of Leftist illusions, perpetuated by globalism, acts like a tribe, but doesn't want to admit that tribes can only be so large. And here, dear reader, we come to the center of just what is meant by trying to assign some level of coherency to the Left's general view of gun control.
In a tribe, there are those who are responsible for having a monopoly on force from outside threats. Everyone else either belongs to the category of decision maker or those who basically work, or those who don't do much of anything at all. Leftism is the ideology of those who appropriate violence, not for the sake of protection, but for the sake of delivering justice, which is, as stated before, rendered through ideology rather than contract. In the worldview of Leftism, those with power or those who want power are the enemy. People who want to be accountable for their own personal safety before going to the state are people who want more power, therefore, are the enemy. It's not entirely about clipping off the symptoms to arrive at world peace, but rather, a means of reallocating power in their favor.
This is why it is important to them that the government be Leftist. They don't have a problem with guns so long as guns aid their purpose; specifically as they pertain to revolutions, in which radicals, historically, usually amass enormous stockpiles of weapons from countries who are willing to bargain with them criminally. They trust the state with weapons. But why would the state need weapons in a 'global community?' To administer justice? To punish? The only wars to be had would be the state against the people, or the people against the people, certainly taking the form of moral scapegoats targeted as irredeemables by the mob. In systems like ours in which antagonism defines the very ways we make all of our decisions through democracy, we are bound, inevitably, to have shooters who act in the name of ideology rather than specific organizations and programs, which means there is no one specific criminal set to target. You end up with the Vegas shooter, the most recent outside of San Antonio and the countless others which have really been happening for the past twenty years or more with no real letup. Whether or not the shooters are ideologically aligned with the Left or the Right is of little importance, nor is it necessarily of much importance that these actions were performed with guns. One calls to mind the various knife attacks in China and Norway over the years, or the truck attacks which have been going on for the better part of a year throughout Europe and the U.S.
People now love to talk about how incompatible Islam is with western values. But when we take a step back and realize how much our own values have been sliding for millennia into systems which constantly systemitize antagonism to play different groups of people off of one another, we see that people in the west are not ideologically compatible with one another either, and that we've suffered precisely the same fate that eastern countries have throughout history, with ever new tyrannies and fracturing cultures. The radical elements of Islam act just as radical Left and radical Right elements do. Every ideological group interprets the events which are unfolding today as eventuations of their own respective prophecies and bring it upon themselves to act out their fantasies. This is precisely what happens when the eternal state, we'll call it for now, tries to absorb the whole world into a series of tax farms, bleeding countries out while taking others at gunpoint, only to result in pockets of psychological excreta through retaliatory terrorism on all sides. You don't stop violence by banning guns anymore than you make everyone love each other by opening borders.
Staving off a gun ban will certainly allow people to act with haste in violent situations, but that is only a bandaid for the real issues at hand. An AR-15 is only going to stop common criminals or break up a knife fight. It's not going to keep bureaucrats from arming radicals with plutonium and discount Cold War toys, which they can promptly sell to our enemies. You can give every man, woman a child a hand gun, but its not going to teach them how to watch out for predatory people who are always waiting for a moment that they can get somewhere high and pick people off...
Democracy is like a game where violence is implied later but eliminated at the outset. Free association will have to play a role in where the world is headed. What we need isn't parties, elections and electorates, but communities which are active in their own various destinies. The ones which are the most compatible, or at least the ones the least at-odds with one another (the ones who 'share a culture' if you will), should become allies. It may be quite true after all that not everyone in a group has the right to weapons or would even want to use them.
The problem with the Left is that it doesn't go far enough. They want the king dead, but they don't want the deleterious forces dead which keep us all beholden and enslaved to a violent system which tells us when and how to defend our ourselves. The fact that we should have to cling so obstinately to weapons just goes to show how much has already been taken away.