A Great CBS Interview with Cody Wilson: The heart of the entire problem of gun control

There is so much going on in this really good interview between Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson and CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil. At one point during this tense interview for which on the surface is about whether or not individuals have a right to manufacture their own guns free of a federal system of control, Dokoupil asked Wilson to put away the philosophy books and consider how you’d feel is someone used the information and technology you provide for a mass killing, and it was there that the real issue of our day was discussed. CBS just as is very typical of all modern media and politics expects society and the direction of our evolution as a species to yield to the whims of sentiment instead of the foundations of logic and reason which cuts to everything that is wrong at this particular juncture of epistemological evolution. This problem is not only at the center of the gun debate in America but on essentially everything—is society better with a central government regulating everything or with individuals functioning freely and by their own impulses. The hypothetical proposal introduced by Tony Dokoupil obviously believes that a centralized government is needed for an advanced society to evolve, and to keep the bad guys from getting their hands on a weapon so to create mass murder. Yet where Cody Wilson is, is where I am and many, many others on the Second Amendment side. If you keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys, who is not to say that the bad guys do not then evolve out of the strengthening of the “state.” Obviously, we have our answer with how the FBI aligned itself with a political campaign in American elections and showed why they can’t be trusted to perform background checks and centralized gun control, because they will use that power against the people they are supposed to protect, and that makes this interview and especially important one because it articulates this essential dilemma quite nicely.

There were a few moments where the CBS reporter just didn’t have the next layer of contemplation ready. From his side of the thought process the real feat that was being exhibited was in the proposal established by Wilson, that the intentions of mankind cannot be legislated out of existence. That the desires of people cannot be regulated by taking away information. This is the hard truth that China is learning in its communist society. People desire opportunities and limiting their access to a potential activity through censorship doesn’t take away the yearning for information. If someone wants to make a gun, if it’s not Cody Wilson giving the information to that person, it will be someone else. There will never be an all-knowing centralized authority controlling all information. That was essentially the point of what Wilson was making. As human beings, people deserve to have access to information that has the potential to make them freer.

To retreat from this obvious stalemate that was when the option of non-thinking was introduced. The proposal of how Cody Wilson might feel if someone took his work and used it for malice, so that guilt might rule logic. That is currently how our entire political system has been functioning, and there is no civilization on earth that has survived well when such a thing has penetrated its culture. Yet there it was at the foundation of the CBS interview. We all knew that was the position of the political left, and at the heart of all gun confiscation, but the position has never been more grossly revealed with such nudity to conceal its ugliness. That is where the genius of Cody Wilson’s challenges to the modern court system has done such great work.

The question was never about whether gun restriction was about keeping weapons out of the hands of mass murderers. The desire was always to assume that more power given to a centralized state would make for a better world. CBS is perfectly willing to deal with the occasional bad cops in the FBI who will turn their head the other way and let off a political candidate they support, like Hillary Clinton so long as they are there to crush a political rival like Paul Manafort because just as the Nazis did in Germany during the 1930s a political party that CBS happened to support had taken control of the powers of the “state.” If that “state” sometimes got things wrong and put the wrong person in jail, or killed the wrong people in a raid, or even destroyed the liberty of thousands or millions of people, that such collateral damage were acceptable for the greater good. But if one lone gunman like the one who shot up innocent people in Las Vegas recently during a music concert buys a gun and uses it to kill people, then the individual rights of people to defend themselves must be yielded for the safety of all. At that point life and death has new meanings so long as individual rights are surrendered for the greater good of all. The hypocrisy of that fundamental idea is what we are talking about in any discussion of gun control.

When there was no satisfactory answer to the quandary the CBS reporter did what all people do who advocate for more gun control, they asked for a non-thinking answer, forget about philosophy, how would you “feel.” The obvious suggestion is that our American society is supposed to be ruled by feelings and not logic, because that is the only way that such a sycophantic position can be accepted, by feeling and not thinking. What do your thoughts tell you to do? Where do those thoughts come from? Is it from God? Then you should listen to them and give up your rights and surrender yourself to the wisdom of the “state.” You should give up your guns so that the “state” can take care of you. Yet at the heart of that proposal is the fantasy of the weak to rule over the strong by way of bureaucracy, which is always the desire of the “state.” They can’t do that if the people they want to control have weapons equal to their military and police for which are employed by the state to mandate justice as it is defined by the courts—also controlled by the “state.”

I’ll tell you what, I like this guy Cody Wilson. He’s smart enough to point out the hypocrisy of the court system on the issue of the Second Amendment and he has the bureaucratic nature of the power the “state” locked in paralyzing self-analysis. The “state” always seeks to have philosophy always stuck in limbo because their fundamental epistemology is flawed within the proposal on gun control to begin with. The only way that anybody could justify such a rationalization is to not think, but to feel. How would you feel if someone took something you provided and killed people with it? The proposal is that you then shouldn’t do it. Cody Wilson under such a premise should not provide milling machines and blueprints for making guns because someone might use that information to kill mass groups of people. But then that same logic shouldn’t be applied to a government that we’ve instead given all that power to who then goes and kills innocent people and rules over individuals in an unjust way. And there lies the problem, the threat is there whether or not guns exist or not, because the desire to abuse power is part of the human experience. In our social evolution we have discovered that if individuals can protect themselves from such aggression that civilization can advance. But if that protection is then yielded to a state government, then the mass murders aren’t crazed lunatics who should be in an insane asylum, but are government workers protecting their pensions and their liberal ideology from the realities of the world, and they can and often are far more dangerous.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.