President Barack Obama told police chiefs that more gun control does not mean less freedom. But as usual, Obama is wrong.
From The Hill:
“Some of you are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs, please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everyone’s guns away,” he told the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
“Every time a mass shootings happens, one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of guns and ammunition jumps up because folks scared into thinking that, ‘Obama’s gonna use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights,’” he added. “Nobody’s doing that."
"We’re talking about common-sense measures to make criminals don’t get them, to make sure background checks work, to make sure that we’re protecting ourselves.”
As law professor Nicholas Johnson wrote in The Wall Street Journal, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Oh.) said in 1989 about guns, "If you don’t ban all of them you might as well ban none of them."
"Gun owners and Second Amendment activists understand that Howard Metzenbaum was absolutely right about the logic of supply-side gun control," Johnson wrote. "So they resist incremental gun controls on the understanding that the latest proposal cannot be the last step."
The last step being gun confiscation, of course. When Obama taught as a part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago in 1996, he said, "I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns." The Daily Wire has previously reported that Obama's has proposed illegal executive orders to implement universal background checks, which places a financial burden on gun retailers and could price out citizens from arming themselves.
But the kicker of Obama's speech was his claim that gun control doesn't reduce freedom.
"I understand we won’t all agree on this issue, but it’s time to be honest, fewer gun safety laws don’t mean more freedom, they mean more danger.” Obama said. "Certainly more danger to police. More grieving families, more Americans terrified their loved ones could be next."
“Some of you are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs, please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everyone’s guns away."
It's ironic that Obama is warning about dangers to the police when he has endorsed the cop-hating Black Lives Matter movement. He is fundamentally wrong in saying that gun control doesn't result in less freedom. The founders understood the necessary of an armed populace to freedom, and world history proves the danger that a government poses to a disarmed population.
The Second Amendment in full reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are two ways to interpret this. One way is that "militia" and "right of the people" are separate from each other (as UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh argues here). The other is that having the right to bear arms is contingent upon joining a militia. If you believe that the latter is true, it requires looking at what "militia" actually means. George Mason, the co-author of the Second Amendment, once said, "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
The key in Mason's statement is that disarming the populace makes it easier to enslave them. This is the purpose of the Second Amendment, for the citizenry to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Many founders expressed this view, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
History is littered with examples of governments that have disarmed the people in order to impose ruthless, bloody tyranny.
Dr. Ben Carson received a lot of heat for suggesting that the Holocaust would have been "greatly diminished" if the Jews had been allowed to own guns. Carson was right.
The Nazis did confiscate firearms from the Jews in Germany, as The Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro explains:
Finally, in 1938, the Nazis enacted the Weapons Law, which banned weapons ownership without a license, just like the 1928 law; the law itself did not explicitly deny licenses to Jews. But the law did ban Jews from firearms businesses, and further required full government-available records of all gun sales. After Kristallnacht, the Nazis utilized the law to ban guns from all Jews after utilizing the media to blame “armed Jews” for unrest. The order issued by the government on November 10, 1938 read: “Persons who, according to the Nurnberg law, are regarded as Jews, are forbidden to possess any weapon. Violators will be condemned to a concentration camp and imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years.” In fact, all weapons were banned from Jews, including stabbing and cutting weapons, as well as swords, students’ rapiers, clubs, horsewhips, brass knuckles, and hunting knives. “The Jews must be warned,” the regulations said, “that they should interpret the new ordinance and the already existing Weapons Law strictly.” Foreign Jews were made subject to the regulations as well. The law was used as an immediate excuse to round up and ship off Jews to concentration camps.
It may be true that the German Jews owning guns would not have been enough to prevent the Holocaust, but it certainly would have been a major impediment to the Nazi's genocide. As Shapiro points out, the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto did delay the Nazis for a month and led to a Polish uprising against the Nazis. For more details on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, check out radio host and constitutional scholar Mark Levin's radio segment on the matter. It should also be noted that when the Nazis occupied France, the French were deprived of gun rights as well as freedom of speech.
Another example of government tyranny imposed on its people after disarmament is Pol Pot's Cambodia. When the Marxist Khmer Rouge took over the country in 1975, not many guns were owned in Cambodia because the country was already very poor and had strict gun control laws. Nevertheless, the Khmer Rouge required the citizenry to turn over any firearms they had. This made it very easy for the Khmer Rouge to turn Cambodia into a massive concentration camp. Pol Pot had created 150 prisons where people were tortured and executed through horrific methods such as suffocation by plastic bags, ripping out toenails, burying people alive, starvation and shooting people to death for crimes as heinous as saying something nice to their child. The Khmer Rouge were responsible for the deaths of two million people over a span of four years.
And then there's the first genocide in the 20th Century- the Armenian genocide. In 1915, the Young Turk regime confiscated all firearms and weapons from the Armenians, claiming it was justified because the Armenians were sympathetic to Christian Russia. The Turks then began rounding up and murdering Armenian men and political leaders. Armenian women, children and the elderly were sent on death marches to the desert with very limited food and water supplies. About 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered in the genocide.
Mao Tse Tung's China also featured mass firearm confiscation, only to be followed by the largest mass murder in history; 20 million people. The examples of government tyranny after gun rights are taken away are voluminous.
This is not to say that the American government could commit horrors like the above examples in our lifetimes, but history has proven that governments, even in democracies, can and will turn on its people, especially if they're unarmed. That is why it is important to ensure that gun rights are not taken away, even if it is done in small steps, to guarantee that our government never does this. While it would be very difficult to fight against a tyrannical government, having no way to defend yourself is a surefire death sentence. Every human being deserves the right to defend themselves.
As Bill Whittle explains in this video, "safety" can never be guaranteed, since we live in an unsafe world. What we can guarantee is freedom: