Right this very second in Zimbabwe, you can see an object lesson in the values of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The situation: since achieving independence from the UK in 1980, Zimbabwe has been run as a Marxist state by Robert Mugabe. He's pulled all of the usual communist tricks: strict repression of political opponents (as in, putting them in jail and terrorizing them for simply being in opposition), seizing land from successful farmers and redistributing it to anyone who signed onto their plan, purposefully starving the population in areas of the country that oppose him. Yeah, he's a great guy.
Things are getting pretty bad there. Due to the foolish farm redistributions from people who actually knew how to produce food to a bunch of people who had no clue, Zimbabwe can no longer feed itself. So, it needs international food aid. Fine. There's plenty of food aid to go around, and liberals please take note: no one in this world starves because there isn't enough food on the planet to support the population. It's because evil shits like Mugabe won't let the food get to the starving people. That's right. Zimbabwe is expected to ask for 1.2 million tons of food aid, and Mugabe will most likely again, as he has in the past, distribute that food in a punitive fashion, based on political affiliation. That means that if people in your region or city have caused the dictator any problems, then you and your family are going to starve.
So what do you do? Well, if there were enough food being grown in your country, you could just go buy it. But by breaking up the farms, he took care of that. If you lived in the country, you could try to grow it yourself. Well, that's if the dictator had let you keep your land. If you lived in a city, maybe you could get some on the black market. But wait, Mugabe just started a military crackdown on black market food sales! So now, if you live in a city, you're completely screwed.
People like Mugabe stay in power by keeping the population hungry and defenseless.
Do you think for one second that a city of people and families would let the government shut down their food markets and essentially starve them to death if they could prevent it? Of course not. But what could they do?
I think you might be able to guess what I'm going to suggest. That's right, ye gun fearing wussies, ye hoplophobes of the world. Firearms. When certain folks actively attempt to starve you, your wife and your children to death, the only appropriate response is to put lots of little holes (anywhere between .22 and .50 inches will do) in those same certain folks.
In a recent and most excellent paper printed in the Washington University Law Quarterly (75 Wash. U. L.Q. 1237) called Of Holocausts and Gun Control
, the authors present the fact that none of the twentieth century's many genocides were committed against populations that had a significant level of firearms ownership. You can read the whole thing here.
They do a good job explaining exactly why this is so, in case you are the kind of person to whom this sort of thing isn't obvious. It is an excellent and clear example of how guns are a great equalizer amongst humanity: giving the physically weak, either in stature or numbers, a significantly greater chance against the predation of those of greater numbers or physical strength. Ladies who know that certain sense of fear when walking alone in a parking garage, please take note. "God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal."
It pisses me off that the world is going to stand by and poo and fart and have meetings and get the vapors while we watch another genocide (wait, check that, it's a "mass democide", referring to the term coined by R.J. Rummel in 1992 for the government killing it's own people) go down on the African continent.
Let's get these people some guns already. Will that be nasty and bloody? Probably. Might the outcome be bad? Once again, probably. But without some means to defend themselves, the only chance they have of not starving to death in large numbers is that the U.N. or some other international organization will intervene and forcibly get the food to them. Oh. Yeah. That basically means they're dead meat.
And that's why an armed population is so important, and why I'm such an advocate of firearms ownership. The situation in Zimbabwe right now is really bad, and it might have to get significantly worse before it gets better, if it ever does. I contend that had the general population of Zimbabwe had firearms ownership patterns similar to those of the United States, there is no way it would have gotten to this point. The government would not have even tried to pull the kind of bullshit they've been getting away with.We own guns so we don't have to fight.
It might seem like a paradox to some people, but that is the fact of the matter, demonstrated quite amply in the twentieth century. More guns means less of a likelihood that you'll have to defend your family from the predation of your own government. The people of Zimbabwe now find themselves on the reverse side of that equation: they have no means of defense, yet they are now required to fight for their very lives; and without help, they will lose.