Why do gun activists feel the need to constantly repeat themselves over and over again? Why do they feel the need to chant such overly simplistic slogans like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns" while ignoring the complexity of reality? Why do they feel the need to flood non-peer reviewed law journals with their erroneous ideas about the Second Amendment?

The answer can be found in the writings of Adolph Hitler:

"The chief function of propaganda is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind.........the slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. The one will be rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results that such a personal policy secures."

-Adolf Hitler from Mein Kampf

Unfortunately for gun activists, endless repitition has no effect on whether or not something is true.

Someone recently complained in an e-mail that my website was not informative because it is one-sided. This is a non-sequitir. It would be like claiming that a science class can not be informative if it favors one position (such as evolution) instead of another position (such as creationism). If the evidence supports one position more than other positions then it is not incorrect to be one-sided. If someone disagrees with the content of my website they are free to present the evidence that supports their argument and I will consider it. Merely pointing out that my website is one-sided, however, proves nothing about the accuracy of the information posted on my website.

 In 1977, in what is known as the Cincinatti Revolution, the moderates in the NRA lost power and the NRA began to take a much stronger stand against gun control. Since that time, there has been a huge increase in the number of articles in non-peer reviewed law journals favoring the individual rights view. Pro-gun activists call their interpretation of the Second Amemdment "the Standard Model." One thing that we certainly don't see is historians lining up to support this interpretation. Why is this? The job of a historian is to discover and tell the truth about the past. It is not to advocate a certain position in the hopes of influencing public policy. The truth actually does matter to a historian. The term "Standard Model" is misleading since it implies a consesus among scholars which does not exist and this position has received little support from those who are most knowledgeable about American history.

Gun activists have often claimed that the words "well regulated" in the Second Amendment do not mean regulated by the government. What did the Founding Fathers say about this? In Federalist 29 Hamilton talks about the Militia being regulated by the federal government (which he refers to as "the national authority", "that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security", and "the national government")



"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union 'to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS'...If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

....If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force....What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen."

thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

I always find it amusing when gun activists try to use guilt by association fallacies to connect gun control advocates with Hilter. The truth is that these gun activists probably have a lot more in common with a terrorist like Timothy McVeigh than advocates of gun control have with Hitler. Hitler tooks lives, but organizations like the Brady Campaign are trying to save lives.



"It is a familiar type. There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Americans who hold beliefs identical to McVeigh's. He is a prototypical extreme-right zealot: He hates and fears the federal government, worships guns, fetishizes 'liberty' (defined in almost purely negative terms, as freedom from external interference of any kind), embraces survivalism and sees himself as having acted in a proud American tradition of resistance to tyranny that goes back to the Founders. Throw in belief in the gold standard, certainty that a U.N.-run 'New World Order' is poised to take over the world, racial resentment and an obsessive fixation on Ruby Ridge and Waco as proof that federal agents are jackbooted thugs waiting to make their final move, and the all-too-familiar portrait is complete.



"This belief system is not confined to the fringes of American society. It has deep roots in the American psyche. What historian David H. Bennett calls 'the party of fear' recurs in many related forms throughout our history, from nativist, anti-foreigner fraternities like the Know-Nothings to the Ku Klux Klan, Father Coughlin's anti-Semitic radio broadcasts, McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, the Moral Majority and Christian Identity. People who subscribe to such views are to be found at gun shows and NRA rallies, in militia groups, on government-bashing Internet forums, in radical anti-abortion groups, at anti-tax rallies, at Klan rallies and holed up in survivalist cabins in the West."



www.salon.com/books/2001/04/07/mcveigh/index.html



I find that in forums like this the above describes the many of the posters (not all) who defend guns. On the other hand, gun control advocates often have more middle of the road political views. They recognize the need for common sense restrictions on liberty within a civilized society as opposed to a state of anarchy. Many of the defenders of guns seem unable to make this crucial distinction between anarchy and civilization. Defenders of guns claim to want to retain their guns. Yet when moderate amounts of gun control are proposed that would increase public safety and not take away their guns, they vigorously protest.



What can I say about McVeigh, a former member of the NRA? Although extremists in the pro-gun movement insist that we need guns to rebel against government tyranny, we don't see them acting on their beliefs. The exception is McVeigh. FBI Agents found a copy of the book The Turner Diaries in McVeigh's car. The FBI believes this book is the inspiration for McVeigh's crime. In the book, the Federal Government decides to ban all privately owned guns. A group decides to launch a guerilla war against the Federal Government and starts by bombing FBI headquarters. It is not hard to see how McVeigh was influenced by the contents of this book. McVeigh was also upset about the passage of new federal gun laws (in 1994). When McVeigh blew up the Federal Building he was wearing a t-shirt that had a quote from Thomas Jefferson on it-



"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."



Like gun activists, McVeigh tried to justify his beliefs with quotes from the Founding Fathers of our nation. Although extremists in the pro-gun movement insist they have the right to rebel they are quick to distance themselves from people like McVeigh, someone who actually acted on this belief.