Gun laws less about firearms, more about relationship between citizens, state
The past few weeks have seen vociferous debates regarding gun laws in the United States. Those on the left question the need for ownership of high-capacity magazines and assault rifles while those on the right often respond with mentions of gun control enacted by Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong. But the heart of the issue and policy is not guns; it’s power.
The interesting truth is that none of these or other dictators were “anti-gun,” per se. Both Stalin and Mao regarded guns as essential to the function of society. Where the factions differ is that Stalin, Mao and other dictators encouraged guns as a means to attain control with subsequent regulation to maintain power. Stalin said the “most important countermeasure against counterrevolution is the arming of the workers and peasants.” Other leaders, such as Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx, shared views similar to Stalin, by expressing support for arming of the proletariat — to rebel against the bourgeoisie.
America was created as the antithesis to tyranny and dictatorial rule, and instituted freedom of arms to prevent future abuses of power. In Federalist Paper No. 46, James Madison makes the point that the right to bear arms, combined with “subordinate governments” (primarily state bodies) and militia leadership elected by those people, is a check on an overzealous central government overreach and a detractor for foreign entities considering attacking the U.S.
To say specifically that communist tendencies in America wish to restrict firearms would be misleading. A more fitting moniker for those ideals would be statism, “a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.” Communist leaders throughout history enacted gun control measures after they attained power, but in America communists are not driving gun control arguments.
The argument comes down to ideology. Americans, whether “pro-gun” or “anti-gun,” do not want mass shootings in schools or gun violence on the streets; they want a country that is safe for their families. America’s founding fathers granted the United States Constitution a second amendment based on their idealistic world, one in which each is unfettered to pursue life, liberty and happiness. It is not so much the gun as it is the principle of liberty.
In a utopian world, where turning in high-powered guns could guarantee the safety of individuals, conservative gun owners should willingly give up some firearms. What those who fear gun control worry about is not loss of hunting privileges but the trickle-down effect. Under corrupt rulers, who enforces due process or defends private property (the Fifth Amendment)? Who protects free speech and religion (the First Amendment)? Perhaps at this point conservative-minded Americans should worry less about losing their weapons in the short term, and more about affecting the minds of those who will control the country in the future.