Gun Ownership Doesn’t Defeat Tyranny

While gun rights have expanded, the right to self-defense is curtailed

Conservatives love to say that the Second Amendment protects all other rights. Without the liberty to bear arms, we would  be helpless in the face of tyranny. This is popular, but untrue. While gun rights have expanded, Americans have lost more of their freedoms.

The real purpose of gun ownership isn’t to satisfy libertarian fantasies of lone gunmen taking on the full might of the federal government. It’s to ensure that citizens can defend themselves and their property. Unfortunately, the right to self defense is being undermined as more Americans carry AR-15s in public.

Many rightfully see tyranny in the gun grabNew Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham initiated last week. The Democrat governor announced a 30-day ban on open and concealed carry of firearms in the Albuquerque area, regardless of whether a person has a permit to do so. This blatantly violates the Constitution, but Grisham dismissed that concern. She argues the Constitution is “not absolute” and she can do as she pleases.

This order drew swift backlash from conservatives, who naturally see it as an assault on their liberties. The good news is that courts are likely to overturn the move. Grisham’s own attorney general doesn’t want to defend the law.

Gun rights have been an undeniable conservative victory. It’s never been an easier time to own a gun without government interference. Thirty-five years ago, only one state allowed unrestricted carry and 16 states completely banned it. Now, every state allows it in some form, with 27 states granting unrestricted carry. The 1990s attempt to ban “assault rifles” is long dead, serious gun restrictions have failed repeatedly to pass Congress, and the courts have advanced gun rights significantly over the years. It was once illegal to own a handgun in D.C. and a few other localities. The Supreme Court killed those laws 15 years ago. More Americans than ever are buying guns.

In many ways, we resemble a libertarian paradise. For years, the defining message of libertarians was: “I Want Gay Married Couples To Protect Their Marijuana Plants With Guns.” This dream is now a reality. Along with the expansion of gun laws, gay marriage is legal and weed legalization/decriminalization is spreading throughout the country. Gay married couples can now protect their weed farms with AR-15s without fear of the law.

While the married gays can now protect their weed from unknown forces, our more important rights are being trampled. We can no longer count on the right to speak freely and the right to self-defense. As the COVID lockdowns prove, the government can shut down businesses and churches if it decides it’s necessary. The government can also lock up political opponents with impunity. Guns do nothing to stop this.

Many conservatives think the government is terrified of armed citizens. But the government isn’t afraid of them, especially when gun owners are  unorganized and the vast majority are law-abiding citizens. Liberals just hate gun owners because they tend to be white conservatives and they want to “own” them by taking their guns away. 

Conservative fantasies imagine a lone gunman bravely resisting a tyrannical system. In reality, the government can easily neutralize one armed guy. This is particularly true when that gun owner is not a violent criminal. The average gun owner is a decent, well-meaning individual who collects weapons as a hobby. He is not the type of person with the capacity to shoot at cops or soldiers.

This has been proven time and time again. A great deal, if not the majority, of arrested J6 demonstrators are gun owners. All of them have been detained without incident despite the government’s claims that they’re very dangerous people. Gun owners volunteered to defend businesses that stayed open in defiance of COVID lockdowns. These militia-style groups were meant to intimidate police from enforcing draconian laws. This didn’t work out as planned. In Odessa, Texas, the sheriff department showed up with guns drawn at a bar “protected” by armed civilians in May 2020. The civilians surrendered immediately. The mere presence of a gun doesn’t intimidate state power.

Conservatives showing up at protests armed to the teeth also demonstrates a harmless quality to gun ownership. Gun owners are just showing off their gear–there is no threat behind the weapon. It’s slung over their back as they walk around.The protesters effectively tell the powerful that they shouldn’t worry about them owning guns. The gun owners respect the law and just like collecting firearms. They aren’t dangerous at all. 

There was a time when armed men gathering together did pose a threat to the federal government. In the early years of America, communities relied on armed citizens to defend the area and enforce the law. These were the well-regulated militias spoken of in the Second Amendment. Militias were directly linked to a community and led by local dignitaries. Militias today are usually disgruntled, middle-aged outsiders who occasionally play soldier in the woods. Communities don’t rely on them for law enforcement or protection. They have police for that. The National Guard, deeply dependent on the federal government, has replaced state militias. This makes for a more centralized society that’s heavily reliant on the federal government.

When militias mattered, the federal government had to worry about imposing its will on localities. The militia system quickly supplied the Confederacy with soldiers at the onset of the civil war. The militia tradition helped topple Reconstruction in the South. Armed men, under the leadership of local elites, banded together and challenged federal authority in their own area. The federal government eventually retreated in the face of strong opposition by local authorities. 

What made militias effective was that they had legitimacy within their community, and it was a collective effort. These citizens knew that they were only able to enforce the law and defy the government as a group. The average “Don’t Tread on Me” gun owner thinks he can do all this as an individual disconnected from the community. It’s a fantasy encouraged by Hollywood and corporate marketing. It will persuade the individual to buy more guns, but all the guns in the world won’t make him a threat to tyrants.

Expanded gun rights are more about greater consumer choice than resistance to tyranny. A person can now buy once-prohibited drugs and place sports bets on his phone all while legally carrying a gun. 

The one area where guns do play a role in resisting federal or state overreach is gun rights themselves. The kind of gun confiscation desired by liberals is impossible in this country. Congress would never pass it, and the courts would never uphold it.  But even if it somehow did make it through those hurdles, it would face intense opposition from gun owners themselves. While many gun owners, possibly a majority, would peacefully hand over their weapons, tens of thousands would not. The federal government would have to invest a lot of money into sending agents or troops to deal with these refuseniks. Many people would die and more money would be wasted. 

But the real hurdle to enforcement isn’t guns–it’s political power that would defy the law.  Twenty-one states and a majority of American counties are “Second Amendment Sanctuaries,” which means these jurisdictions will not enforce gun laws they deem “unconstitutional.” One gun owner standing athwart an ATF tactical unit would not stop gun confiscation. But hundreds of sheriffs and state officials saying “no” would cripple the effort. 

Gun ownership still needs to be protected. The right to bear arms is critical to the right to self-defense. However, the expansion of gun rights comes at the same time that the right to self-defense is being infringed. The  Kyle Rittenhouse, Daniel Perry, Jake Gardner, Ian Cranston, and Daniel Penny cases show this fundamental right is in jeopardy. 

Kyle Rittenhouse used his gun to protect himself from Antifa assailants during the Kenosha riot. Only a well-financed legal defense saved him from life in prison. .

Daniel Perry wasn’t so lucky. The former Army sergeant used his gun against an armed Antifa checkpoint guard during the Austin riots in 2020. Despite the lead detective on the case supporting Perry’s argument for self-defense, he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 25 years in jail earlier this year. 

Jake Gardner used his gun to defend himself against a mob of assailants during the 2020 riots. He killed himself after authorities announced he would be charged with manslaughter. 

Ian Cranston used his gun to fend off a man attacking him and his fiancée at an Oregon bar in 2021. A court found him guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to ten years in prison.

Daniel Penny did not use a gun in his case, but his story should still concern gun owners. He took down and restrained an aggressive passenger on a New York subway in May. While his fellow passengers thanked him for his service, the Manhattan DA charged him with manslaughter. A conviction in this case would further erode the right to self-defense.

Open carry laws are nice, but they’re useless if the justice system continually punishes those who defend themselves against criminals. Owning guns would just be a soothing balm to those without power. Gun collectors could imagine themselves as Rambo, but they would know they couldn’t use any of this firepower in life-or-death situations. They can only use these guns to shoot up shit in their backyard. Guns would effectively be rendered as toys.

That’s why it’s important for the Right to defend upstanding citizens who are punished for defending themselves. Daniel Penny’s case matters more than the right to own a bazooka. You won’t be able to stop tyranny if you can’t even shoot a home invader without jail time.