5. On the Right to Bear Arms:To relinquish the right to bear arms is to condemn oneself to slavery.

During the reign of Emperor Wu of Han in China, a chancellor named Gongsun Hong advised the emperor to ban the people from possessing bows and crossbows. His reasoning was that if a criminal possessed such weapons, a hundred officials would be unable to approach and capture him. This demonstrated that possessing bows and crossbows benefited criminals, and thus, to combat crime, their possession should be prohibited. The rationale behind authoritarian governments' gun bans today mirrors Gongsun Hong's argument exactly. Though over 2,000 years have passed, this governing philosophy—which superficially claims to benefit the people but ultimately harms them—has never changed. In response to Gongsun Hong's proposal, Emperor Wu of Han convened a council of ministers. Among them, a minister named Prince Wuqiu Shou voiced dissent. His argument was that permitting universal crossbow ownership would mean both citizens and criminals possessed these weapons. When facing criminals, citizens would retain equal defensive capabilities. The mere possession of weapons by the populace inherently served as a deterrent against criminals. If crossbow ownership were banned, the people would cease possessing them out of obedience to the law. Yet criminals would find ways to retain their weapons regardless of government prohibitions. In such circumstances, the people would be utterly defenseless against criminals. Thus, prohibiting crossbows appears to target criminals but actually strips the people of their defense capabilities, allowing criminals to run rampant. Only criminals would desire the government to ban civilian crossbow ownership. Faced with these two viewpoints, Emperor Wu of Han, a formidable ruler, immediately endorsed Prince Shou of Wuqiu's stance.

History demonstrates that governments treating their people as human beings are less likely to ban weapons—the Han Dynasty exemplifies this. Conversely, regimes disregarding their populace are more inclined to prohibit arms—the Yuan Dynasty serves as a case in point.

When governments regard citizens as human beings, the people harbor no animosity toward the state. Without such hostility, citizens won't resort to arms against the government, and the state's interests remain unharmed even without weapon restrictions. If a government fails to treat its people as human beings, the people will grow increasingly hostile toward it. A hostile populace will naturally take up arms against the government. To avoid such attacks, the government will attempt to prohibit the possession of weapons.

Put another way, a government that does not regard its people as human beings is itself a criminal organization. Criminals are the last to want the people to possess weapons, so they will inevitably ban their possession.

In a true democracy, citizens will never relinquish their right to bear arms. The rationale lies in the fact that threats to every citizen typically originate from three sources: First, government aggression; second, aggression from fellow citizens; third, aggression from foreign invaders. Government aggression is universal, constantly threatening everyone, even inevitable; aggression from fellow citizens is random and incidental; aggression from foreign invaders is relatively rare.

Regardless of the source of threat, citizens possessing arms retain the means of self-defense. Should citizens relinquish arms, they become wholly dependent on the government for protection. Yet government infringement is inevitable, while infringement by others is incidental—even rare. The government's rationale for urging disarmament invariably claims that others might threaten us if armed, thus prohibiting arms would prevent such harm. The reality, however, is that it is often the government, not other citizens, that threatens us.

History repeatedly demonstrates that governments are the least reliable entities. If citizens relinquish their right to bear arms, they become utterly defenseless against governmental aggression. Moreover, abandoning this right paves the way for the gradual erosion of all other civil liberties, ultimately reducing citizens to serfs.

Modern authoritarian governments relentlessly use the media to instill fear about gun ownership. Whenever a shooting occurs, the media in these countries will inevitably give it extensive coverage. Through such reporting, they subtly instill public aversion to gun ownership, leading people to unconsciously believe that ordinary citizens with guns will indiscriminately kill. This propaganda logic essentially assumes all citizens are potential murderers—that anyone possessing a firearm will commit random killings. Reader, if you owned a gun, would you kill indiscriminately? Under what circumstances would you use a weapon? I believe you would not kill indiscriminately unless someone attacked you, in which case you would use a gun for self-defense. If you wouldn't kill indiscriminately when you have a gun, why would others do so when they have one?

In reality, in countries where gun ownership is permitted, the number of deaths caused by gun violence does not exceed the number of deaths caused by traffic accidents. Following the logic of banning guns, we should also ban cars, as traffic accidents also cause deaths.

As long as citizens retain the right to bear arms, neither government officials nor criminals dare to overstep their bounds. Otherwise, oppressed citizens might turn their guns on them. When citizens are disarmed while the government holds weapons, citizens lose the means to resist the state. Surrendering the right to bear arms inevitably leads to enslavement. Therefore, a truly democratic nation must be one where citizens bear arms.