Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 423, June 24, 2007

"Never Give up, Never Surrender!"


An Exercise in Logic
by Albert Perez

Credit The Libertarian Enterprise

Remember the argument supporters of gun control used to make? The one that started "Why would any decent, honest person want a (weapon they wanted banned)?" This was a good rhetorical trick. It defined those of us that wanted to own a (fill in the blank) as bad people unless they could prove they needed (fill in the blank) for reasons the hoplophobe approved.

There are in fact reasons for good people to go unarmed and they need not explain that choice to anybody. Contrariwise they are free to explain their reasons as volubly and persuasively as they will. This does not give them the right to require the rest of us to disarm.

However this does lead me to question the definition of decent honest person the disarmers are using. Obviously extremely advanced mystics, monks and other practitioners of pacifistic philosophies (with or without a religious basis) choose to go disarmed and are good people. I confess most people I know do not have that level of trust in Whom or Whatever. I don't think that makes us bad people. Most proponents of disarming their fellow also lack this trust. That's one of the reasons thety want to disarm the rest of us.

Toddlers who want to play with guns and knives (as well as matches, household cleansers, live poisonous insects, etc.) are called naughty as they have the contraband taken from them. They lack the understanding, strength and coordination to handle these items safely and must be discouraged from doing so until they are more physically and mentally developed. Perhaps hoplophobes were raised by parents who used the word naughty too often and who don't get it that they and the rest of us have grown up and it's OK for us to work with weapons. Anyhow I have even if I joke about not being overblessed in the maturity department.

The only other group of people who must choose disarmament to be defined as good are slaves. Rebellious slaves are bad (from the masters' viewpoint). Slaves who want weapons probably want them to rebel (ya think?). Therefor slaves who want weapons are bad. This is a nice simple syllogism.

So let's run this through in one big piece. A person (slave) who wants to arm himself is a bad person (rebellious slave) unless he can prove to the authorities (masters) that he wishes to do so for reasons that they approve (is appropriate for the duties his masters assign him).

Could it be that supporters of gun (and knife, club or whatever) control are in fact wannabe masters and their submitted slaves? That the reason they want to disarm the rest of us is to put us under the yoke? That perhaps it's time we stop being so damned polite and call them on this?

So tell me, assuming I'm not a frustrated masochist (which I'm not), why would any decent honest person want to enslave me, or deny me the tools I need to resist enslavement?


Summer Clearance Sale- Up to 80% Off 

Barnes and Noble
Shop for their Summer Clearance Sale: Up to 80% Off!

to advance to the next article
to return to the previous article
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 423, June 24, 2007

Big Head Press