“If what you say is true,” countered the panel member who they brought on to represent the gun culture, “then I assume you believe that the government; local, state and Federal, should lead by example and destroy every assault rifle in their collective inventories, immediately.”

All four anti-gunners erupted with mixture of nervous or indignant laughter. Some shouted over the others that the government keeps us safe. That there are terrorists to worry about. Criminals have those guns and so should the police.

Folks, I was that gun culture panelist. The panel included 3 hard corps gun control advocates. The moderator who supported the anti-gun position by his words and actions, myself, and a YouTube gun guy.

“You are being unreasonable. There is no reason, not one, that weapons of war need to be on our streets.” Said the shrill-voiced female guest, one of four people supporting strict gun control out of a group of six. An Internet news outlet invited all six people to participate in a live forum.

Soft-minded Rejection

It saddens me that many people who would benefit from the following paragraphs will never get beyond the title. You might offer we alter the title to make it more attractive to the soft-minded reader. I would counter that the soft-minded are beyond the reach of the written word.

I would charge you, the dedicated reader, to consume the following. Then break it down into easily digestible words and phrases you can for the soft-minded people in your life. They must be spoon fed the truth. A few may consume it, but most will spit it out like a misbehaving toddler.

The State is Exempt

To proceed, we must agree that gun control isn’t about the eradication of firearms or certain types of firearms. Gun control advocates temper calls for more restrictions, confiscation, and complete ban on ownership with an exemption for the State.

Since the first gun control bill passed in 1934, State and approved employees have been exempt from these laws. The tone was set. Since that time cities, states, and the US Federal government have written themselves out of the laws. Yet, they wish to impose them upon the citizen, the taxpayer, the people they are Constitutionally charged with representing.

Have you rated us on iHeartRadio yet?
Click Here to “Heart” us and Leave a Comment below the episodes >>

Gun Control is Mind Control

Gun control is mind control for many reasons. Let us examine one of the most glaring attempts at mind control. For Gun Control to succeed, you must convince people that they are a subservient or lower class of people. A lower class than those who work for the State. You must lead a person to believe that they have become forbidden to own or possess any of several inanimate objects. All because the risk of them owning such an item is far too great. However, their neighbor who lives down the street has been exempted from such restrictions because they work for the State.

When gun control advocates defend the exemptions for State employees, they tend to bolster it. They bolster it by saying that said employees need the evil guns to protect themselves and their very lives. That stated purpose immediately puts on display the idea that the lives of State employees are more valuable. All because they require greater protection than the mere citizen or “civilian” does.  The people are no longer equal to their government, they are a step or two below it.

Gun Control is Mind Control Because:

In that you might believe that you, as your own person, may be able to curb your baser instincts. Therefore have trust to own objects, your neighbors and other people in society cannot own. Only by the act of surrendering control to the State can the State have enough power. Enough power to control the actions of your untrustworthy neighbors and fellow citizens.

You must convince others that objects that were perfectly legal to purchase and possess yesterday, perhaps they have been legal for fifty years, have today become objects so threatening and dangerous that they must remove it from circulation. Again, not removed from the hands of the State, but from the hands of the people.

As you must brainwash others into believing that by surrendering the right to possess an inanimate object makes us safer. That a rapist, robber, murderer, even a terrorist, will somehow have a hindrance placed upon them. Hindered in their desire to commit heinous felonies against you and your community.

It must convince you that the laws currently forbidding rape, robbery, murder, and terrorism are not strong enough to prevent those acts from occurring, but a malum prohibitum[1] bill making an object illegal will prevent the aforementioned crimes.

The subjects of the control must be made to believe that the existing malum in se [2]  laws, passed down from generation to generation, culture to culture, for the entire recorded history of man, are not enough to prevent vicious criminal behavior. However, the prohibition of an inanimate object is enough to stop criminal behavior.

Gun Control is Mind Control Cont. (2/2)

• As it attempts to convince you the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights allows all manner of hateful and radical speech, but the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights has been misunderstood and allows for the State to alter it in any manner they deem appropriate.
• You must believe that despite the passage of NFA 1934[3] and more than 80 years of gun control on the United States of America, even more restrictions are a need to make us safe.
•  You must believe more malum prohibitum statutes can make the world safer.
• As you must not realize nor understand that the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous lower courts have ruled the State has “no duty to protect” the people as individual citizens [4] only the public in general. This mind control convinces you that the police need their guns to protect you. To protect the citizen, though the courts have ruled that they literally cannot be held accountable to keep that promise.
• Because you must be led to believe that firearms related accidental injuries and deaths are the greatest public health risk. You must ignore that firearms accidents fall statistically below those from automobile crashes, falls, poisoning, drowning, electrocution, and burns.
• In that you must be convinced that your “feelings” or how you “feel” about the subject of firearms is just as important, if not more so, than the actual facts of the matter. Emotions are more important than reality and feelings trump facts.
• Whereas you must believe that saving the life of “just one” is reason for more restrictions on your liberty. While at the same time you must also believe that every woman has the “reproductive right” to end the life of the child growing in her womb.

In Conclusion

Finally, gun control is mind control as you must be convinced that rather than to use the inanimate objects, those so dangerous and feared that they must be banned, as instruments of liberty to defend the very rights that are being stripped away, you are instead obligated to peacefully surrender them.

For gun control to succeed, you must believe that truth is lies and lies are truth. You must believe that the State can be trusted. Trusted with all things, but the people, those whom the State is commanded to represent by the United States Constitution, cannot be trusted and therefore must be controlled.

Footnotes:

[1] Malum Prohibitum: is a Latin phrase used in law. The phrase is used to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute. As opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

[2] Malum In Se: is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature. While independent of regulations governing the conduct

[3] The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms. As well as a tax on persons and entities engaged in business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms.

[4] gunssavelives.net/blog/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/

• Jan 28, 2013 – The court has kept this stance for over 30 years. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. It is the job of police officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Professor Paul Markel

Founder & CEO at Student of the Gun

Paul G. Markel has worn many hats during his lifetime. He has been a U.S. Marine, Police Officer, Professional Bodyguard, and Small Arms and Tactics Instructor. Mr. Markel has been writing professionally for law enforcement and firearms periodicals for nearly twenty years with hundreds and hundreds of articles in print. Paul is a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio talk shows and subject matter expert in firearms training and use of force. Mr. Markel has been teaching safe and effective firearms handling to students young and old for decades and has worked actively with the 4-H Shooting Sports program. Paul holds numerous instructor certifications in multiple disciplines and a Bachelor’s degree in conflict resolution; nonetheless, he is and will remain a dedicated Student of the Gun.

Latest posts by Professor Paul Markel (see all)

• Neighborhood Watch with Rifles: Patriot Fire Team - June 5th, 2023
• Is the M&P Shield from Smith & Wesson Accurate Enough for Fighting? - May 21st, 2023
• Competition Kills: Are We Fooling Ourselves with Tactical Games? - May 14th, 2023
• BIG Bug Out Bag: Where are you Going? (BBOB) - April 5th, 2023
• Liberalism Kills - March 28th, 2023