If I exist, and I own myself, and I own my actions (which I’d argue makes sense) I own what I produce.
If I trade what I produce for something else, I own what I traded it for. (Again, this is basic stuff, but if you disagree, please feel free to note why)
If someone, anyone, be that a person, or a government official, or God almighty (if you believe in such) were to come down and say “Give that to me;”
So, this person must use force. they must initiate force and use a threat of harm to take it away from me.
This harm can be prison, can be fines, it can be shooting my dog, it can be poisoning my water supply (I’ve had someone threaten this to me before on here, silly example, but hey); but they must initiate the threat to get what they want.
If I refuse, and try to stop them, I’d argue I’m not in the wrong; especially if I committed no harm and had no desire to commit harm to another.
This means the escalation of force and the resultant violence is wholly predicated on the person acting.
What this means is, you, yourself, by advocating for such measures, must be willing to follow the end contingency. You, yourself, must be willing to be morally responsible for the deaths of what could possibly amount to over 100 million people (that’s how many gun owners are in the US right now) if every one of them refused, and fought back.
A more likely number would be about 10% of them, or around 10 million people, myself included.
The legislation you are enacting requires you to be ok with using force to imprison me, hurt me, or even kill me, and possibly people I care about.
If you are unwilling to do so yourself, then I’d argue you shouldn’t advocate such measures by proxy.
kianamaiart
kaledo-art
theartofmadeline
tangentwithtanner
