Discussion Thread: Gun Rights vs. Gun Control + Dialogue with a Gun Control Advocate

Discussion Thread on Gun Rights vs. Gun Control; Person Falling into Dungeon Through Hole

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”

—Cesare Beccaria, recorded by Thomas Jefferson in his Legal Commonplace Book1

The topic of gun rights/control is one I assumed pretty much everyone in the anti-tyranny/pro-freedom movement would be in agreement on. A lively comment exchange at a recent el gato malo post proved otherwise, however.

Dr. Meryl Nass also wrote this thoughtful analysis of the topic2:

Meryl’s COVID Newsletter
School shootings. I am sorry, but this needs to be said.
1. Normal people have no interest in killing children, especially ones they do not know, especially in large numbers. 2. In my view, only people subject to mind control (please investigate Sirhan Sirhan or read about US intelligence agency attempts to create mind controlled assassins beginning in the 1950s) or people taking certain…
Read more

And The Naked Emperor started a provocative discussion thread about it here.

These exchanges sparked me to start a discussion thread (my first!) posing the question:

What are your views on gun rights/control, and why?

Here are mine:

1) The MSM lies like hell.

Every story they present serves a narrative. Every fact that threatens those narratives is suppressed. Every journalist of integrity knows this as a certainty.

Ethics in journalism is extinct in the mainstream media. It is an absolute impossibility to publish a story that violates the iron-clad laws to serve their corporate sponsors and government masters. They are unadulterated propagandists. That is why old-school reporters who care about ethics, facts, and balance like Sharyl Attkinson, Rebecca Strong, and Sally Beck leave.

You can learn precisely how the propaganda machine operates to craft narratives and suppress inconvenient facts in Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism.

Two+ years of COVID propagandizing have made this obvious to the hypnosis-resistant. The media flood the public consciousness with fear smut by constantly reporting death and case counts based on fraudulent data from cooked PCR tests; deaths “with” not “of” COVID; and fatalities caused by lethal protocols (not COVID). Simultaneously, they hide the millions of injuries and tens of thousands of deaths proven by the Bradford Hill criteria to have been caused by the experimental injections.

This is how they control a narrative. It is absolutely no different when it comes to gun rights.

Just like with COVID, the media only reports gun crimes. It never shows the staggering numbers of instances in which victims have defended their lives from criminals, saved others’ lives by stopping mass shooters in their tracks, and defended citizens from tyranny throughout history. They also scarcely report the massive numbers of knife crimes and homicides committed by other means such as vehicles.

2) The media pushes gun control—another wedge issue created to divide us—through emotionally manipulative, triggering reporting engineered to manufacture consent for gun restrictions.

When people are bombarded with tragedy, their higher reasoning faculties shut down. Anyone who tries to calmly discuss the topic of gun rights in this atmosphere is likely to be perceived as callous. It is during this emotionally charged window that the politicians and propagandists push hardest for gun control laws. This is Problem Reaction Solution in action.

Case in point—Tyrant Trudeau has already leapt into action, right on cue, saying, “It will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer, or import handguns anywhere in Canada.”

The possibility that some of these lightning-rod events are LIHOP or MIHOP false-flag alphabet operations is irrelevant when it comes to the argument for gun rights, and veering off into what is considered conspiratorial territory by normies will cause people on the other side of the debate to tune out and shut down. That doesn’t mean these are invalid lines of inquiry, just that it will derail the conversation and give them an excuse to dismiss you as a “conspiracy theorist.”

Even those who have bought the narrative, however, can probably agree the media is primarily responsible for creating the psychological conditions in which tragedies such as mass murders occur and seeding the lust for notoriety among the mentally deranged.

3) Organizations like the NRA profit from the threats to take away gun rights, so they can’t be trusted, either, and are guilty of their own form of fear smut.

Yankee Marshall provides a fairly balanced perspective on proposed gun legislation and which bills constitute genuine threats. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says. He’s wrong about his faith in the injection, for example, but he is against mandates, which is consistent with his views on the Second Amendment.

4) Every totalitarian, genocidal regime in modern history has first disarmed its citizens. It is a prerequisite to accomplishing tyranny.

5) Gun laws do not stop criminals from acquiring them. Gun laws do not stop mass murders from occurring. They only stop law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. This is precisely what tyrannical governments desire.

6) The constitutional framers understood these precepts so deeply, they enshrined them in the Second Amendment as a means of preserving the First.

7) Over the past two years, the countries that ratcheted up the tyranny most rapidly were those that had predominantly disarmed its citizens.

8) Gun restrictions serve despotic regimes, not the people. If you care about defending yourself, your loved ones, your freedom, and your autonomy, preserving gun rights is a matter of life or death.

I didn’t always hold these views. Like most people, I was once carried along by the propaganda and mistakenly thought more guns = more bloodshed. It wasn’t until I woke up to the framing that I realized this was yet another lie, researched it, and discovered the data tells a very different story from what the media presents.

To further elucidate my position, I will share excerpts from an exchange I had with a reader at the original el gato thread. I don’t want to call unwanted attention to her so have only listed her initials here, but this is a person whom I’ve enjoyed positive encounters with on other occasions and who’s on my mailing list (props to her for not unsubbing over this).

She has seen through the lies about COVID, but she believes the media and government are telling the truth in this case. She took my arguments as personal attacks against her rather than her position. I understand that when one of your deeply held beliefs is being challenged, it feels like an attack on you personally; apparently, I failed to make that distinction clear. If she is still willing to re-evaluate her position, perhaps she and others like her will read this discussion thread with an open mind and heart.

One of my hopes is that, in this little sanctuary of the Internet, we can enjoy civil exchanges about points of disagreement without it devolving into defensiveness and ad hominem attacks. This discussion thread is intended to offer a space for exploring this issue in a thoughtful and respectful manner.

Dialogue with a Gun Control Advocate

MAA: The logic required to connect cause with effect is nearing extinction in the human species, and those of us who still possess that capacity risk ostracization, incarceration, and ultimately elimination for threatening the collective psychosis. A risk well-worth taking, I might add.

NE: Come on. Guns don’t cause mass shootings but they’d be less of them if guns weren’t around

MAA: And a lot more knife stabbings and truck massacres.

libertate [also responding to NE]: And?

There would be less automotive fatalities if cars weren’t around.

Perhaps “we” should ban them.

OS: Cars are not specifically made to kill people.

MAA: Neither are tools of defense.

OS: Eh?

MAA: Just clarifying that guns aren’t made to kill people. They are a tool, just like a knife or anything else that can be wielded by evil people or anyone else, and they can be used to defend the vulnerable from the psychopathic, the weak from the strong, the citizen from the tyrant. The only reason tyranny hasn’t gotten further along in America is 2A, and every people that has ever given up that right to its government has come to regret that decision bitterly.

OS: That’s a fancy way of saying that guns are made to kill only the right people, the people we don’t like. And I can assure you that in countries with better gun control we don’t walk around “bitterly regretting” it at all. Definitely is not at all the reason tyranny hasn’t gotten further in the States. How many shootouts have you had with your government lately? What you have are good constitution and laws and courts willing to enforce those laws, and you all should very well be thankful for that.

MAA: No, you’re misunderstanding my point. Guns are neutral. They aren’t “made to kill only the right people.” Mentally ill, psychopathic people will find whatever ways to kill they can, and guns help vulnerable people defend themselves against criminals. There are far more knife stabbings than gun murders. Taking away guns doesn’t prevent evil people from doing evil things, but it prevents innocent people from being able to defend themselves from criminals and tyrannical governments.

The shootouts aren’t what stop tyranny—the tyrants’ *awareness* that so many good citizens are armed and willing to defend the Constitution and our freedoms against tyranny is what stops them from overstepping their bounds into outright totalitarianism.

We do have a good constitution, thankfully, but we can no longer rely on the increasingly corrupted courts to defend our laws against those who are pushing to violate them. 2A provides a bulwark against the most egregious forms of tyranny, and that is precisely why the constitutional framers included it.

OS: Yup I know and I’ve heard it all before. This is exactly why you’ll keep getting these mass murders in the States.

MAA: History has proven it again and again and again. Every genocide requires the disarmament of the designated enemy.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur—what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

“If . . . if . . . We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more—we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure!”

—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

OS: This, in your style, is a grand piece of rhetoric which deals with none of the actual problems you have in the States, and ignores the countries which have gun control and no genocides.

MAA: “and ignores the countries which have gun control and no genocides”—YET.

How would you defend yourself if the guards come to take you to the gulag?

You are aware of the democide that’s been underway for the past two+ years. You are aware of the escalating totalitarian laws enveloping the globe. You are aware of the countries that have already incarcerated dissenters in isolation camps. You are aware of the rights and freedoms that have been stripped in the name of “public health,” “safety,” and the “good of society.”

And yet you naively trust these governments never to overstep their bounds, as the citizens of every past totalitarian genocidal regime have done throughout history.

It’s time to flee the cult of safety and stop swallowing the propaganda you’ve been fed about guns by the tyrannical governments whose limits are inscribed by their presence:

OS: I should add, I’m not sure who you’re talking to who “naively trusts the government” and belongs to a “cult of safety”. I think you may be arguing with someone you’re imagining, but it’s not me 😆

MAA: That’s what I thought and why I am so bewildered that you have bought the anti-gun propaganda, which only serves criminals and tyrants!

I used to share your position years ago. And then I researched it and realized I was mistaken. And the past two years have solidified the absolute necessity of being able to defend ourselves against tyranny.

JP Sears went through a similar re-evaluation of his views on this subject:

OS: Because I have a different view, I must have swallowed propaganda? Interesting. I can’t have come to this position by reason? The past two years did indeed cause me to reconsider this position; I in the end remain unconvinced.

MAA: Having a different view isn’t the issue at all. Different views are fine! I am simply saying this particular position aligns with government propaganda, which serves to protect the interests of the powerful over the people.

OS: You view it as propaganda because it contradicts your point of view. I think you can’t imagine that someone might have thoughtful reasons for having a different perspective.

MAA: I view it as propaganda because it is propaganda, not because I disagree with it. Time and again, it has been proven that the media has sensationalized gun violence for political gain—all while ignoring the daily flood of stories about people successfully defending their lives against criminals and good guys stopping shooters in the act.

Ask the members of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising how important guns are.

“German General Jürgen Stroop arrived in Warsaw ready to wipe out all opposition within a single day as a birthday gift to his Führer. Stroop had 2,100 soldiers with 13 heavy machine guns, 69 handheld machine guns, 135 submachine guns, several howitzers, and 1,358 rifles. The approximately 750 Jewish resisters had two submachine guns, a handful of rifles, and homemade explosives. But the resisters were able to fight off Stroop’s soldiers for the first few days, and they were able to hold out under siege for four weeks.

“Simcha Rotem, a survivor, later told filmmaker Claude Lanzmann: ’During the first three days of fighting, the Jews had the upper hand. The Germans retreated at once to the ghetto entrance, carrying dozens of wounded with them.’”

Imagine how the story would have ended had everyone in the ghetto been armed. Oh, I know, they wouldn’t have been there to begin with.

OS: No one is arguing that guns have never been used in self-defence. Your argument is that unorganized, scattered, private gun owners with weapons that do not come to the level of government arms, are somehow holding off tyranny in the US. Forgive me, but that seems like a fantasy. You think I’ve come to my position by swallowing government propaganda; frankly, that’s a little insulting. You may not be able to admit that people might have good reasons for having a different perspective from yours, as that would be to admit it’s a valid viewpoint.

MAA: Perhaps it’s because you don’t live in America that you fail to realize the 2A community is an enormous, highly cohesive group passionately committed to defending our rights against tyrannical encroachment. It is the size and commitment of that segment of the population that keeps the government in check. Hired goons are not going to be willing to come seize people’s guns and subsequently rights and lives when there are so many people willing to defend those rights with their lives.

OS: That might be true, but again, you’re trying to prove a negative. You have a belief that this is keeping the government from imposing tyranny, but you still haven’t provided one example of that happening. The actual way tyranny has been kept in check in the States is through the courts upholding the Constitution and the laws. This is also a massive distraction from the problem under discussion: why does the US have so many mass shootings and gun deaths?

MAA: You are suggesting that the American people gamble their lives, rights, and freedoms on the premise that it is not the large sector of highly armed individuals willing to defend us that is preventing the government from escalating to full-blown totalitarianism? You seem to be unaware of history and that the progression from democracy to tyranny doesn’t happen in an eye-blink but over time.

“‘To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

“‘How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn’t, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might.’”

—A philologist colleague of Milton Mayer’s, Chapter 13, “But Then It Was Too Late,” They Thought They Were Free: The Germans: 1933–45

As to your question, “why does the US have so many mass shootings and gun deaths?” Perhaps you should ask why doesn’t Switzerland, where nearly every citizen is armed, have scarcely *any* mass shootings? Why do the majority of mass shootings happen in areas with stronger gun control laws? Why does crime go down in areas where more citizens are responsibly armed? You’re only asking the “why” the media wants you to ask, not the ones that reveal the truth that they are trying to disarm us to strengthen their power over We the People.

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”

—Saul Alinsky3

OS: I don’t have time to properly answer this right now, but I will briefly say: again, you’re trying to prove a negative. “We have guns in the States and no genocides, you have no guns and no genocides BUT YOU MIGHT SOMEDAY” is not an argument. Secondly, what you are dealing with in this century is not armed warfare; you are dealing with totalitarian nanny statism which for the most part does not resort to violence to achieve its ends. Thirdly, please name me one recent example where someone or a group of people went up against the US government with guns and achieved its aims and did not end up either dead or in jail? What you *actually* have are mass shootings, high rates of gun homicides, suicides, and accidents. The rhetoric may be great on the other side, but that’s what your gun rights look like in actuality.

MAA: “which for the most part does not resort to violence to achieve its ends”—UNTIL IT DOES.

You’re locked in a cell with a psychopath. The psychopath is armed, and you are not. He hasn’t done anything to you yet, so nothing to worry about, right?

The argument is every genocide in history. Disarming the populace is a necessary step to achieve it. It cannot be accomplished overtly without that step.

You evidently fail to understand the concept of mutually assured destruction. Having a large sector of the populace armed *prevents* the necessity of using guns to defend the citizens against tyranny. As Solzhenitsyn reminds us, officers are not going to be eager to come arrest you en masse and cart you off to the gulag if they know you have the ability to defend yourself.

The mass shootings, high rates of homicides, and suicides happen predominantly in states and cities with draconian gun laws (California, New York, Chicago, etc.). Criminals can get guns no problem; it is the innocent law-abiding citizens who cannot defend themselves because their right to self-defense has been taken away.

OS: Yeah I know; like I said, I’ve heard all the arguments before. And the fact that it simply doesn’t look like that in countries without armed citizenry totally escapes the American mind. As does the fact that the idea of an armed citizenry prevailing against the government comes literally from the 18th century. I suppose all the actual deaths are the price you have to pay for that idea.

MAA: Canada. Australia. New Zealand.

I suppose the loss of freedoms and rights is the price you have to pay for your idea. Not to mention the lives of whomever a democidal government targets for elimination.

Gun laws don’t stop criminals from getting guns. Gun laws don’t stop governments from using force against you. Gun laws don’t stop “actual deaths” from occurring.

All they do is stop law-abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves against criminals and tyranny.

OS: No one uses this argument about any other crime - “laws don’t stop this crime from occurring entirely, therefore we shouldn’t do anything to make it more difficult to commit, or allow us to enforce those laws.” And again, you have no actual proof that guns in the States prevent “tyranny”. You do, as I mentioned previously, have evidence that your laws and courts do. Which is something we are lacking in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Forgive me if I don’t believe that the idea of a shootout with a few zealots keeps the government on its toes, sans evidence.

MAA: I can forgive you for not believing that because I have repeatedly said that your straw man argument of “a shootout with a few zealots” is not what stops tyranny. It is a broadly armed populace that is willing to defend its rights that stops tyranny.

I’m really surprised someone who sees through the lies about the injections cannot recognize that the same people are lying to them for the same reasons. Why is the media suddenly trustworthy in this one instance? Why is the government suddenly trustworthy in this one instance?

OS: Do you think the government and media are the only sources of information or the only ways anyone forms their opinions?

MAA: There are those whose opinions are formed by the media, and there are those who form their own opinions. If one’s opinion aligns with the media, the government, the politicians, and the corporations, then one’s opinion has been formed on their behalf.

OS: Well, I guess I’ll have to leave this discussion by thanking you for assuming I’m incapable of independent thought. That’s a conversation killer right there; you might want to rethink that strategy.

MAA: It’s because I know you are capable of independent thought that I have bothered to engage in this discussion to begin with. I know you are capable of seeing through the lies, so it surprises me that you are not doing so here.

OS: You believe they’re lies. You seem incapable of seeing another point of view, or understanding that any intelligent person could think differently, which is pretty par for the course for any discussions I’ve had with Americans on this issue. However, thank you for engaging.

MAA: You keep retreating into self-defensiveness and ad hominem attacks. I am providing historical evidence and the rationale for the propagandists to lie to you.

If two+ years of COVID tyranny hasn’t convinced you that you should be skeptical of the MSM’s and politicians’ drum-banging lies, then I’m sorry you are unable to see that you have fallen for a self-defeating talking point.

© Margaret Anna Alice, LLC
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You Make This Work Possible!

If you feel my writing is worth supporting, please help me continue fighting tyranny and democide by subscribing, buying me coffee, or making a one-time donation.

I cannot overstate how much your support means to me and how necessary it is for me to continue devoting every available second to unmasking totalitarianism and awakening the sleeping before tyranny triumphs. Thank you, dear readers! 🙏🤗🙌

Did You Miss It?


Since I published it over the holiday weekend, a lot of people missed my letter to legislators about rejecting S.3737, which would institute a federal Ministry of Truth for public health. Please see the original post and instructions for taking action here:

Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass
Letter to US Legislators: #DefundTheThoughtPolice
“In 1946 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution reading in part, ‘freedom of information is a fundamental human right, and the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.’ This is our touchstone as well. This is the code of the Voice of America. We welcome the view of others. We seek a free flow of informa…
Read more


Sign up for upcoming IPAK-EDU courses! See the announcement at the end of this post for more details, and remember to use my affiliate link to register for any courses you decide to take.

“You've got to jump off cliffs all the time and build your wings on the way down.” —Ray Bradbury

I thank you for reading, thinking, sharing, and supporting my work in whichever ways you choose.



Share Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass

Bitcoin Icon

Prefer to donate crypto? You can send Bitcoin using the following code:


Since crypto transfers are anonymized, I won’t know about your donation. Please drop me an email by responding to any of my newsletters if you’d like to alert me to your generous gift.

Remember, a subscription to Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass makes for an intellectually adventurous gift down the rabbit-hole!

Give a gift subscription

GET THE BOOK! The Vapor, the Hot Hat, & the Witches’ Potion: A Fairy Story

Note: Purchasing any items using Amazon affiliate links included in my content will further support my efforts to unmask tyranny.


This quote is often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, but it turns out it is a quotation by Cesare Beccaria that Jefferson recorded in his Legal Commonplace Book. The original is in Italian, and the quote above is believed to be from a 1963 translation by Henry Palolucci. (h/t The Good Citizen for introducing me to this quote)


On researching this quote further, I discovered it is actually Alinksy’s synopsis of Lenin’s speeches (which I suspect he advocates but don’t want to buy Rules for Radicals to confirm, although it would probably be a good idea to read under know-thy-enemy and all that):

“The essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was, ‘They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.’ And it was.”