Historically authoritarian governments hate gun ownership of private citizens. The late Chinese leader Chairman Mao said that ‘political power comes through the barrel of a gun’, and he was of course correct. That’s why totalitarian governments hate guns and over the course of modern history have sought to outlaw remove them from private control.
Democracy in the United States was created under God by a populace that had ubiquitous ownership of guns yet today Democrats would rather ban guns than safeguard schools and other public places with competent security. Notably the former Soviet Union had great security for the citizenry and could leave many critical facilities lightly guarded-even those storing weapons grade uranium and plutonium, because people were too afraid of the KGB’s internal security forces to commit crimes. A totalitarian state with a monopoly on guns is a status, evidently, acceptable to today’s Democrat Party in the United States working supportively to concentrate wealth and absolute power. I wonder if Russia has liberal gun laws today, or if people are still banned from owning AR-15s or AK-74/Ar-15 hybrid weapons?
Some have pointed out the reasonably need of the government to stop the mentally incompetent from possessing guns. People with actual physical cognitive damage so far that they don’t know what they are doing with a gun that is equivalent to driving a motor vehicle impaired under the influence of alcohol should indeed have their weapons possession restricted in order to prevent harm to themselves or others. Yet the exploitation of mental health by government powers is another tool for totalitarianism and the removal of political dissidence to totalitarianism of the state. With modern MR perhaps the state should need to provide physical evidence of relevant cognitive mental damage in any individual it seeks to deny fundamental constitutional rights.
When the founders created the first amendment there was no electronic broadcast media. It is probable that they would never have created the first amendment as it is if there was radio and in the absence of dueling. Back in the day, in the early 19th century, libel and slander laws could act as checks and balances to the print media, besides the alternate legal remedy of calling out a nefarious media wise guy to the legal field of dueling if all other defenses against public abuse failed. Today those remedies are largely obsolete in regard to the broadcast media and its raving and psyop extremes for propaganda purposes. How few radio broadcasters have been convicted or substantively punished for libel and slander, stalking and harassment?
The broadcast media is a tool for the ending of democracy. An NPR poll found that 75% of Democrats regard curtailing or rolling back the 2nd amendment as their number one political priority. In other word Democrats are constitutional regressive and pro-corporatism, or at least they told NPR what NPR wanted to hear.
The poor students shot as chickens in a coup in Florida recently should have had better school defenses such as fingerprint scanners for door entry and imaging to screen out guns. The exploitation of slaughtering humans concentrated in unsafe, undefended structures to advance the interests of national authoritarianism under the power of the Supreme Court of Corruption is not a reason for optimism.