Lies the government told you by Andrew Napolitano (best e reader for epub TXT) 📗

Essentially, the right to keep and bear arms is a restatement of the ancient natural right to self defense; it recognizes not only the right to protect oneself from criminal conduct, but also from a tyrannical state or federal government. That is why the Founding Fathers placed it second in the Bill of Rights, following behind only the right to freedom of expression and worship. And for almost one hundred and fifty years, the federal government did not interfere with this fundamental liberty.

During the early twentieth century, the federal government’s benign attitude began to change. The progressives in the federal government began to erode this natural right, as they did many others, always with “good reason” for the “safety and security of the people.” Their descendants today argue that without gun control the U.S. will turn to anarchy; that, if armed, people will shoot each other on the streets during minor disagreements like traffic disputes. Yet when you ask those who make such claims whether they would shoot another person, the response is always, “Well, no; I wouldn’t do that.”

Each time the government creates new laws that regulate and limit our access to firearms, we are one step closer to being a disarmed and defenseless people, the very state of affairs the Founding Fathers feared and sought to prevent. Yet the government—while obtaining more power for itself—continues to deceive us, claiming that it is not trying to strip the people of the right to bear arms and that anyone can arm herself; she just needs to follow the rules. And it justifies these rules, claiming that guns cause violence and death and that gun control results in lower crime and safer streets.

But one must ask, safer for whom? Safer for the criminals who rob, assault, and rape, all the while knowing that the probability of their victim being armed is slim and thus they do not have to fear a fight that they cannot win? Safer for a tyrant who fears an armed citizenry? Safer as opposed to freer? If things continue this way, liberty’s tombstone will read, “This was for your own good.”2

If constitutional guarantees are dependent upon the goodwill or benign intentions or untyrannical nature of future governments, while presently allowing the “good” government slowly to abridge our Second Amendment rights, then the Constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper, defenseless and easily destructible.3 And we can listen to those who deride even the mention of the tyrannical and disastrous results of other national disarmaments, claiming, “Not in America” as they roll their eyes.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then the road to tyranny is paved by believing the government. Even if it had the best of such intentions, the government’s infringement of the people’s right to defend themselves, their homes, their families, and most importantly their liberties, is an asphalt truck paving such a road at an ever-increasing rate.

Shortly after the repeal of Prohibition, the progressives in the federal government decided that we were in need of gun control legislation, and Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. Since Congress recognized that it did not have the authority to regulate guns, it snuck what was in essence the first gun control law through the back door, claiming it as a revenue-raising measure under the taxing power of Congress.

Surprisingly, Congress recognized that it could not ban guns outright, so instead it overtaxed them. This is the reason why until recently the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was under the authority of the Treasury Department. The 1934 Act regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms and required the registration of such arms4 and was to be enforced by the Treasury agents who were looking for work due to the happy end of Prohibition. Looking for work, or looking for targets?

Justification for enactment of the legislation centered around the gang wars during Prohibition and especially the Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago in 1929, when Al Capone had seven of George “Bugs” Moran’s men executed with machine guns. The argument, though moot considering that Prohibition was at an end, claimed that if assault weapons had been regulated, then the violence of Prohibition would not have occurred. The gang violence that had proliferated as a result of Prohibition became the perfect excuse for the federal government, but also another of its lies, considering that gang violence slowed to a crawl once Prohibition was repealed. Did anyone actually believe that mobsters, who stole, maimed, and killed on a daily basis, would hand over their guns because the federal government said they should? Even more egregiously, the 1934 Act regulated other weapons, like short-barreled rifles, which were not associated with any gang activity. But, as usual, once the government was able to gain an inch, it decided to take a mile.

Disarming the Poor

The core of the National Firearms Act was the price people were expected to pay. In order to register a shotgun, payment of a $200 tax was required, an exorbitant amount when considering that it is equal to $3,056.11 at today’s values.5 It is even more excessive when one considers that, according to the Sears catalog in 1938, a brand-new shotgun could be purchased for $6.95. So why would anyone in his right mind pay a tax of $200 for a $7.00 gun? It is government theft to place a tax on an item that is greater than the value of the item itself, but even more incredible when the tax is twenty-eight times the value of the item. The equivalent theft today would be a tax that forced us to pay $200 to the federal government for a paperback novel or a cheeseburger.

Even more shocking is that the Supreme Court upheld the Act, holding that the $200 tax was a constitutionally valid exercise of the taxing power of Congress. The Court refused to look beyond the face of the Act, which was cited as a revenue