Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

If you ever saw the parody movie Airplane! you may remember Lloyd Bridge's classic line, "Looks like I picked the wrong time to quit (vice of choice)."

Now, please understand, I do not believe in gun control. I view it as late stage lung cancer passing itself off as a cure for AIDS. The leaders (including many who stay in the shadows) of the gun control movement are wannabe Schicklgrubers and Dzhugashvilis and their followers at best completely brainwashed dupes and at worst criminals who wish to disarm their victims.

That said, for the sake of argument we will say that some gun control proposals are absolutely necessary because of the limits of human nature. This is a false statement, but we need to make it to set up the rest of this article.

This is the wrong time to impose new gun control laws. The two great standing gun control laws in the United States are the National Firearms Act (AKA Gangster Weapons Act) and the Gun Control Act of 1968. The first was passed when the USA was at the edge of revolution during the Great Depression and when the Government was getting ready to carry out a series of programs as part of the New Deal that could have triggered armed resistance (for example, suspending gold payments, banning private ownership of gold bullion and coin with a few exceptions). GCA '68 was passed when due to growing resistance to the Vietnam War, the Weathermen, and other calls for radical change "the Man" felt concerned about the possibility of armed insurrection. Both laws were passed when the Establishment, for lack of a better name, the Ruing Class, was concerned with the danger of armed insurrection threatening their power.

This Spring a member of a citizens' militia group was killed at an FBI stop after the siege of a Park Service building in Oregon. The Black Lives Matter movement derives its support from a widespread acceptance of the belief that young Black Men are being killed as a warning to all other African Americans to stay in "their place." There is no doubt that the bosses are prepared to use violence to enforce their rule.

The American people are fed up with the Establishment. In the Republican Party this is reflected by the all but guaranteed nomination of Donald Trump for President. In the Democratic Party this is reflected by the run for her money Bernie Sanders gave Hillary Clinton for the Nomination, even with Clinton's support by the Party Leadership to the point of coming to the edge of cheating in the primaries if not actually cheating.

The Bosses are threatened. In spite of the efforts in the mass media to claim otherwise the Dallas shooter was engaged in armed insurrection against the use of violence to keep the Man in power by murdering Black men. It is not unimaginable that people of all races may decide that armed insurrection is necessary., that armed revolution is necessary.

Of course, we could sit down and make the changes to our society we need to avoid armed revolt. I don't pretend to be smart enough to know what these changes are, obviously if I am writing this article for TLE I support the proposal that these changes will be achieved by weakening, not strengthening, the state. Regardless, major change is needed.

Or the Establishment can hold power by force. Heavily armed, militarized police an beat us into submission. Internet and physical surveillance can be used to make sure we are toeing the line. Family members and other informants can be used to catch those who thought they were going to challenge the system.

Of course, this is all easier if the people are disarmed, or at least if their access to "military class weapons" is restricted. Why should the Man negotiate or make the fundamental changes if he can hold power at gun point and the people, being disarmed, have to take it?

This is why this is the wrong time to pass gun control. It communicates that the Bosses have no desire to negotiate real change with the people, but rather to hold power by force. It increases the necessity of armed insurrection and guarantees "we the people" will lose a fight we had no choice but to make.

No one "needs" an M4 or AKS. Except perhaps as a way to persuade the Bosses to negotiate. Al Capone is apocryphally credited with saying "You can accomplish more with a smile and a gun than with a smile alone. " I think all sides in a negotiation should have both to keep the dealing honest.

What do you think?