The End of Gun Control: Philosophy and Strategies to Secure a Free State

By Ken Yamarashi

Dive into the complexities and controversies of gun control using the framework of political-economy to explore thought-provoking implications on criminal justice, self-defense, personal liberty, social cohesion, the administration of law, constitutional order, republican federalism, and the role of government in a free society. Drawing from a wide range of sources, historical examples, philosophical insights, and causal-realist analysis, this book challenges conventional wisdom and invites readers to critically examine their beliefs about gun control, security production, and the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Everyday Samurai Life
• Release date: Dec 10, 2023

Book preview

1 Orienting On Liberty

Introduction

The title of this book, The End of Gun Control, has a double meaning.

On one hand it describes the desires of gun control advocates who, despite their purported aims, are not against the presence of guns in society but want to wield decision-making authority over how guns are used or accessed and, most importantly, by whom.

On the other, it describes what ought to be the goal of all free people: to stop all efforts to deny individuals the right to choose the most suitable means to protect their own interests and to be secure in their persons, property, and effects.

Conventional gun control advocates are, apparently, comfortable with a special, privileged segment of the population having exclusive control over firearms and using, or threatening to use, violence in order to prevent everyone else from enjoying those same rights equally.

Another aspect of examining the end of gun control is to follow the chains of reasoning being presented to their logical conclusions.

Whether knowingly or not, gun control advocates are agitating to use the power of the state to create a caste system of privileges for some and disqualifications for others. It is an effort to segment society into groups of the preferred and deplored with differing rights for the individuals in each of these separate baskets created by self-appointed social engineers.

Those people within the preferred caste are privileged with the right to keep and bear arms while those outside the caste are disqualified from doing so without a license from those within it. The key characteristics of this caste, that gun control advocates are agitating to create, is their employment by the state and the exclusive use of firearms to police the rest of society.

In other words, gun control advocates are pining for a police state.

Another key feature of the special armed caste, born of the gun controllers design, is their provisioning and subsistence through the public treasury. Only those who work as enforcers for the state can keep and bear arms. In the eyes of modern gun control advocates only special people, loyal to politicians and established government bureaucracies, can be trusted with arms while the rest of society should be mandated to pay for the maintenance of this privileged caste. It’s good work if you can get it.

Rather than providing for equality under the law and the right of every citizen to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, living under the ends gun control advocates intend means everyone will be subject to the whims of the privileged caste. The politicians, bureaucrats, and armed enforcers can dictate the terms of regulation, along with the taxes to be paid, without restraint or fear of credible resistance.

Under such an arrangement, there can be no practical adherence to limited and enumerated authorities delegated through the consent of the governed in a federated constitutional republic. Obviously, the vision held by gun control advocates is incompatible with a free society, the principles inspiring the Declaration of Independence, equal justice under a common law, and the basic tenets of decentralized self-government.

Focusing On A Positive Vision

Dwelling on the negative and railing against the errors, distortions, slanders, and outright deception spewing from gun control advocates, any longer than necessary to raise awareness, is a losing strategy. Similarly, the terminology gun control advocates use to frame issues must be rejected, rebuked, and discarded.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, one cannot solve the problems created by modern gun control using the same level of thinking that created them.

Creating a new future requires an evolution of thought that rises above the din and confusion, transcending the emotional, fear-based dialogue in order to behold a clear vision of what putting an end to gun control will look like. It is by putting this desired end state first that we can then map out a pathway toward realizing the objective.

For this reason, the principles outlined here focus on a positive solution to the problems created when a monopoly on the means of using force is concentrated into the hands of a privileged tax-consuming caste. This is the crux of the issue, and it is here that hacking at the branches of the supposed gun control debate must cease so as to strike the root.

The desired end state presented here is a complete and final end to gun control, to permanently remove the capacity of politicians and bureaucrats to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and, therefore, to completely neutralize gun control advocates so that everyone can live secure in their person, property, and liberty.

To do so, patriots and gun rights advocates must make certain shifts in the ideas and approach to asserting what are commonly known as Second Amendment rights. Thinking holistically requires seeing the right to keep and bear arms as a necessary precondition to securing a Free State, and well-regulated militia as inherently governmental institutions with specific authorities and functions essential to the maintenance of a healthy, decentralized republic.

The legal remedies are already embedded within the US Constitution and no further legislation is required at the national level. The actions required are at the local level. After all, ultimately, as former Representative Tip O’Neil pointed out, all politics is local ¹.

Yet the real change must first begin in the minds of individuals championing the cause. There are fundamental flaws in the way most Second Amendment advocates present their case that directly lead to the erosion of gun rights, as is currently manifest.

To end gun control there must be a paradigm shift, a revolution of the mind leading to changed behaviors that align with the desired future. This requires breaking down injurious thought patterns and clearing away unskillful actions that have led to the present circumstances.

To get different results, more skillful thoughts, behaviors, and actions are required.

Furthermore, the endless bombardment of attacks is entirely too much to keep up with. The American experience, particularly since the 1934 passage of the blatantly unconstitutional National Firearms Act, has shown that it is impossible to swat away the constant nuisance of sensational media, showboating politicians, special interest groups, surreptitious regulations, and cunning legislation that have ground down the right to keep and bear arms.

It is wasteful, and damaging even, to expend energy trying to win at the games gun controllers play.

Therefore, The End Of Gun Control proceeds with a few basic themes to orient all other arguments and actions on securing a Free State by restoring the right to keep and bear arms as a necessary component of self-governance.

Uncompromising

This is not merely stating that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms, let alone trying to play statistical games about crime rates or the efficacy of concealed carry licensing. All of those tactics play into the hands of gun controllers and aspiring tyrants.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a necessary precondition to effectively operate governmental civic institutions with specific functions integral to a Free State. On this there can be no compromise and anyone seeking to do so is not merely infringing upon individual rights but also undermining the republican form of government foundational to constitutional order.

Adopting the approach outlined in The End Of Gun Control shows the efforts of those infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as incapacitating the only governmental institutions deemed necessary in the entire US Constitution.

It is time to start calling gun control what it is: an insurrection against constitutional, republican order.

Gun rights advocates who avoid embracing the Second Amendment in its entirety and ignore the militia clauses of the US Constitution are constantly fighting a defensive retreat. It is time for this to stop.

If you want to see an end to modern gun control, it is time to take the high road, knowing that the cause is just, and the Supreme Law of The Land is on your side.

The high road involves a shift from arguing for an individual right granted by license from the State to one of acknowledging that equality under the law, by definition, grants no monopoly jurisdiction to a special caste of individuals who hold public office and that maintaining the security of a Free State requires an armed equilibrium across all citizens and thoroughly diffused political power.

Taking the high road also involves withstanding the slings and arrows of detractors. There are plenty of agitators who will bear false witness in order to advance their agenda. For entirely too long, there have been those who make false accusations, slander, and outright lie in order to instill fear, promote mass confusion, and propagandize a bias against gun rights. This should be expected and remedied by holding fast to principle.

Shining the light of truth is the best way to make deceptive cockroaches scatter.

When the rights infringement propagandists call militia groups anti-government, the immediate response is, grounded in truth, that a robust militia system is necessary to the security of a Free State.

When the rights infringement propagandists say only government agents should have guns, the truthful counter is that militia are inherently governmental institutions with specific constitutional functions and We The People are the government just as much as anyone holding public office.

When the rights infringement propagandists say military grade weapons don’t belong in the hands of civilians, the truthful counter is that the whole body of the people is required to be trained to arms so as to execute the law, repel invasions, and suppress insurrections (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15).

When the rights infringement propagandists point to violent crime statistics as justification for gun control, the truthful counter is to point out that the fault lies in the failure of the necessary governmental institutions tasked with executing the laws, and how all too many citizens are derelict of their civic duty to be armed, organized, and disciplined to contribute to the security of a Free State.

Remember, those who try to limit the legitimate use of force in society to only the special caste of people holding public office are the ones diminishing the principle of equality under the law. Indeed, they are the ones promoting inequality, lawlessness, and ultimate tyranny.

The increasing security and justice vacuum experienced today is directly attributable to a breakdown in constitutional order and the lack of active citizen participation in self-government. The End of Gun Control is the solution to law and order in a Free State.

Bringing about The End of Gun Control involves not only asserting the right to keep and bear arms but, more importantly, putting the center of political power into the hands of the whole body of the citizenry; with no one being above or below the law, and little respite for those who choose to operate outside it.

Discarding the Extraneous

Fundamental concepts pertaining to constitutional order stem from Enlightenment thinkers, like John Locke, who stated that the entire purpose for establishing government in the first place is so that people can live peaceably among one another and free from external invasion. This can be summed up as justice and security.

People come together and enter into civil society, as well as political bodies, to promote their mutual security and prosperity, as Founding Father Samuel Adams wrote in 1772 ². A big part of creating prosperity is leveraging the division of labor. It is quite natural, and a logical consequence of individual self-interest, that people specialize in tasks that they are suited for and in which they find how to make a positive contribution in society that other people value.

In other words, social cooperation is enhanced when some people specialize in security and justice services so that others can focus on different productive endeavors. For this, of course, security and justice providers are due adequate compensation.

Yet also amid this logical delegation of these security and justice functions sits the proclivity for those entrusted with the reins of government to abuse their authority.

Samuel Adams posited that, just as individuals have the right to determine the price they are willing to pay for services in their private affairs, so has a community the right to stipulate the price of public administration. Holding the Power of the Purse is one pillar of popular self-government that prevents those holding government office from indulging in greed or using their positions as a vehicle of pillage.

Yet that is precisely what has happened. The civil authority, established to provide security for a community of people and their property has perverted the instruments of justice into a vehicle for plunder.

The American Founding Fathers understood the potential for, and the proclivity of, unscrupulous characters to use the power of government to satisfy their own greed. They understood a great deal about human nature, stating that if men were angels no government would be necessary at all.

They also understood that governments were composed of mere mortals that were fallible to the same degree as all other humans. At their level of understanding, though, the Founding Fathers could not avoid creating offices that would engender the very threats to life, liberty, and property, they sought to protect against.

It is for this reason that the second fundamental pillar of self-government, the Power of the Sword, was enshrined in the US Constitution.

While enjoying increased productivity, through the division of labor, allows for increased prosperity and The Wealth of Nations, as Adam Smith’s seminal work concludes, the production of security can never be fully relinquished to any exclusive group if liberty is to endure. Doing so is a sure recipe for engendering tyranny and despotism, the very antithesis of security.

The security of a Free State requires active participation from the whole body of the people. It is for this reason that every able-bodied citizen must be trained to arms and organized to execute the laws, repel invasions, and suppress insurrections. Constitutional order, indeed, depends upon it. This is why the Second Amendment declares it necessary.

Pay special attention to the first constitutionally specified task: to execute the laws.

In a Free State, law enforcement is not reserved to an elite class of anointed praetorian guards. Upholding and enforcing law is a civic responsibility for individuals to contribute to social order and their mutual security.

By having the citizenry at the action end of law enforcement, the US Constitution allows for the people to ensure that all legislation that gets passed by their purported representatives first comports with the Supreme Law of the Land before it gets carried into execution.

The people must perform the final connection point in the circuit of self-government in order to maintain security and a Free State. This cannot be left to the wiles of politicians and tax-funded bureaucrats.

The constitutional system of citizen-based law enforcement, if only it were functioning as designed, affords no opportunity for self-aggrandizing politicians and bureaucrats, nor wealthy individuals or politically connected corporations who may try to influence them, to use the powers of the state for nefarious purposes.

Since the people at the local level are implementing the legislation passed into execution, they are able to ensure that it abides with the authorities delegated to those legislative bodies, before allowing it to impact them. Absurd regulations and unlawful legislation, such as make up the bulk of what currently passes through Congress, will be dead letters under strict adherence to constitutional order. Onerous regulatory agencies will be neutered and largely irrelevant.

This is especially important with regard to the collection of taxes.

Since taxes to support the execution of limited, delegated powers are established through legislation, having the people at the local level execute the laws means neighbors will be looking each other in the eye while doing the collecting. One can imagine that due diligence, conducted by each self-governing political unit to ensure the taxes are necessary and proper and directly tied to an enumerated constitutional authority, will occur before any expropriation takes place.

This imposes fiscal discipline on the layers of government that depend on tax collections to operate. If the federal system is viewed as a pyramid, as depicted on the backside of a dollar bill, having the citizens organized to execute the laws of the union restores the strength of the pyramid to where it geometrically resides, in the base.

This was how the federal republic was designed to function but, over time and through numerous iterations of political churn, has been completely reversed. Rather than a federation of free and independent states cooperating for mutual security and prosperous free trade, the term federal has come to signify a top-down command structure.

Ending gun control and restoring true federalism, through local self-governing civic institutions, returns the republic to an organic, bottom-up political union, a subsidiary federation of cooperating polities.

Further, since the general government is tasked with arming, organizing, and disciplining the local self-governing civic organizations to provide the primary element in every conceivable form of homeland security, the taxes collected are akin to membership dues that will predominantly be employed in support of community security and justice initiatives.

Most importantly, having the people organized, trained, equipped, and fully involved in the execution of all legislation and regulations passed through their representative bodies allows for local adaption to ensure implementation suits the customs, culture, and necessities of each diverse community.

While there are some laws that are universally applicable regardless of time and place—such as those prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, theft, or fraud—other legislation calling for enforcement requires a more nuanced approach. The scope of such legislation is extremely limited and, ideally, would be handled under the most local administration.

The majority of legislation currently being pushed down from the general government is outside the scope of constitutionally delegated authorities and, by right, should not exist. So, it is no use trying to wrap one’s head around how the locals would be able to keep up with the volumes of legislation and mountains of regulation in existence today. The best policy is to take a blowtorch to it, both mentally and physically.

Still, participation in a federal union may require executing legitimate legislation, such as training according to the discipline prescribed by Congress or preparing to repel invasions. This might involve constructing defensive fortifications or conducting a field exercise that will look different depending on the terrain or environment.

Implementing these policies will need to be adapted according to the needs of the local community. There may be an obligation to fulfill the intent of federal legislation, yet there always remains the latitude to vary the manner in which these actions are carried out.

Military organizations consider this a mission type order. Commanders determine the what that needs to be done while the actual maneuver units figure out how to get it done. This allows for innovation, initiative, and improvisation. It is also much more effective than a directive type order that stifles all ingenuity.

A federated approach to law enforcement and policy implementation means it will not be tax-salaried bureaucrats imposing one-size-fits-all regulations, dictated from on high, according to the discretion of a federal executive agency headquartered in a distant capital. The people most impacted by the law or policy will determine how to enact the measures in a way that aligns with their values and in a manner most likely support their safety and happiness.

Squash the Looting Machine

Since the scope and sphere of legitimate governmental activity is specified and limited by enumerated authorities, the amount of things requiring widespread implementation is extremely small. Carrying out the basic tasks that are authentically necessary to provide for the common defense and general welfare are, then, not overly burdensome.

Further, since the common defense is important for the mutual security of all citizens, self-interest is sufficient to muster adequate civic engagement. Arming, organizing, and disciplining the whole body of the people, except for public officials, is precisely for incidents of insurrection, invasion, or public danger because these specific threats, when real, impact every member of the political body.

Unfortunately, the majority of what is currently being done under the color of delegated authority is not serving the common defense or general welfare but, in actuality, benefits a vast political caste that extends through a thick tapestry of public office holders, political parties, special interest groups, intergovernmental bodies, globalist institutions, and politically connected corporations.

The designers of the American constitutional system recognized the propensity of executive officers to exploit crises and mass hysteria as a means of consolidating power for themselves. With this in mind, the power to declare war was invested strictly within the branch of government intended to represent the taxpaying public, and their subsidiary political units, also known as the several states.

James Madison proposed in Federalist No. 10 that a broad diversity of factions would preclude any one special interest group from seizing control ³. Acknowledging that fallible human beings would always seek to take advantage of governmental power