I found an article entitled "Liberals Actually Love Guns" via Nikki at The Liberty Zone
(A great blog by the way) The article and Nikki's commentary are spot-on. Anyway, the article has inspired what will eventually be a long post. So I'm putting this here as a reminder for now.
At a fundamental level every involuntary interaction that occurs between individual citizens and the government carries with it the implicit condition of coercive force. The role of government is supposed to be limited to protecting citizens from outside invasion and protecting the individual rights of citizens. Ideally the government has no power other than that which is specifically delegated to it by the text of the Constitution. That means no ridiculous excuse for the government to grab power through the all encompassing "commerce clause." Unfortunately the government has far more power than was ever intended by the framers.
Marko said in his piece "Why the Gun is Civilization" that people have only two ways of dealing with one another, reason and force. I believe the same can be said of dealings between citizens and their government. Every law, every restriction, every tax, decry, mandate etc. levied by the government on it's citizens inevitably has the threat of force attached. As Mao said "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun," and he is right, at least at some level.
If I decide I no longer want to pay my federal (unconstitutional) income tax I can choose to do so. The government, acting via the IRS will inform me of my non-compliance with the tax code, likely through both writing and telephone calls. If I continue to repeatedly refuse payment and tell the government to "fuck off" they're not going to reason with me and say "well how about you pay 10% of what we asked?" They're not going to send a man in a suit and tie my door and politely ask for taxes. No, at some point in my interaction with them they will send armed federal agents to break into my home, forcefully arrest me, and seize my assets as payment.
The same can be said for "eminent domain" policies. If the government uses eminent domain to kick me off my land / out of my house and I refuse they will eventually send armed agents to kick in the door and force me out. If this were not the case government could largely be ignored with impunity.
If the government declares something "mandatory" they must be implying that their will be consequences for those who refuse to comply. Take Clinton or Edwards' universal healthcare for example. Edwards was quoted as saying "they don't have that choice" when asked about individuals who might choose not to be enrolled in government healthcare. In order to force healthcare upon the unwilling they must use force, delivered by men with guns to arrest anyone giving and /or receiving private care when other means of coercion have failed. A gun pointed at a person is the ultimate coercive force and it would be naive to think the government doesn't understand this and use it to their advantage.
Liberals and politicians don't want to admit it, but they want guns. Not just want, they need guns to force their utopia on those who wish to live free. This is true of liberals, communists, socialists and fascists alike. This is why any government who's philosophy is predicated upon common good and forced compliance must disarm the populace before it can attain its goals. Just as guns are the ultimate coercive force in the hands of the government, they can be equally coercive in resistance when held by citizens.
Vladimir Lenin was once quoted as saying,
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”
Lenin was correct in his observation, which is why it is a truism of history to say that armed men are citizens who must be reasoned with, while unarmed men are subjects who can be disregarded, trampled upon, and even slaughtered without fear of reprisal.