The title is a typical rallying cry of anti-freedom politicians. We know they are lying. But let’s pretend, just for a moment, that they aren’t. If they really mean to restrict only weapons of war, then we are looking at one of two possible outcomes:
- They mean to eliminate almost every firearm, pole arm, ranged and edged weapon out there, since all of them had at one time been used in warfare. For example, a typical hunting bolt action is derived from the 1898 Mauser rifle, and a typical handgun is very similar to what World War One troops carried. Are you OK with being denied ownership or access to every rifle, shotgun, musket, arquebus, crossbow, bow, sling and atl-atl ever fielded by an army?
- They wish to restrict only current weapons or war. So obsolete designs, like the 1895 Colt machine gun should fine by them. Yeah, right! They would be no more OK with the 1918 Bergmann submachine gun than with 1915 grenades or 1896 Mauser pistol with a shoulder stock. The variety of obsolete arms is tremendous, and none of them look sufficiently dated to the anti-individual politicians. The current efforts of Australian prohibitionists to ban lever action smoothbores is a testament to that.
There’s also that little issue of enforcement. In the end, gun control is accomplished by using weapons of war in the streets to murder anyone who tries to resist. That’s how British troops enforced gun control Palestine, by imposing death penalty for unauthorized arms or ammo possession from 1937, with the predictable escalation from all sides. That’s how Nazi and Communist troops enforced it on conquered territories everywhere. The foes of individual freedom aren’t creative. To achieve their ends, they will use the same tools they claim to disdain against any opposition. And, ever the believers in collective responsibility, they will use deadly force on anyone associating with their enemies through kinship or friendship. In other words, it would be enough to be a relative of the enemy of the state or a casual social connection to get imprisoned or murdered. That’s how Pol Pot’s regime wiped out a quarter of Cambodia’s population over mere four years. In other cases, they might pretend to believe in gun control but actually use their political influence to facilitate smuggling of weapons for profit while cracking down on legal competitors. Others use draconian restriction to extort bribes for permits. Both arbitrary enforcement and increasing the vulnerability of the population to predation by government agents as well as by other types of criminals serve to cultivate learned helplessness, a mark of co-dependent or at least politically passive people. A typical example of that are the residents of Detroit and Memphis, who continue to re-elect leftist city administrators despite extreme mismanagement.