Conservative, independent and libertarian candidates running for President need to understand one value which resonates with voters; safer streets will be good evidence of a healthier self-rule. You won’t get safer streets viz-a-viz violent crime without a repeal of gun control.

Gun control has been the cornerstone of all costly and predatory big-government bureaucracies. Immense centralization never seems to be as good at the stated goal as the citizen is. Centralization is becoming a real mainstream pain on man, many issues now. The gun control formula is the Hegelian model of crisis management and dependency instead of crisis eradication and prosperity in independence. In this, it has seemed so far that conservatives are identical with liberals. Not a dime’s bit of difference. Americans are very apprehensive now that we will soon reach a point of no return where we will lose the country thanks to stubborn indolence and unwillingness to heed constituents. We have lost a great deal of self-rule, and we’re losing it more every day. What do the conservatives, libertarians and Independent candidates offer?

Good question. It might be best to tell them what we need and see if they really listen. Unwind gun control, and smaller government will come sooner than anything the candidates have planned. The way you do this as President is to stump for it boldly and get elected on it among other mainstream values. The way you stump for it boldly is to understand how the second amendment really operates and operates non-violently in its safeguard role against centralization. This is the part which affects the whole nation.

If the repeal of gun control reduced the size of government, would constituents support it? If it meant your pocketbook and the price of a gallon of gasoline, would you go for it?

There is too much misunderstanding among the candidates about what the second amendment is. It at first looks like force and appears to too many officials to be unneeded and uncouth, a foible of toothless, bitter, survivalist isolationists, but you’re wrong. Too many candidates don’t know that police have no duty to protect individuals to begin with (I know, I’ve spoken with them), and some dopes think Militia is National Guard. It isn’t. The armed citizen is not a redundancy of official agencies, the agencies are a redundancy of citizen authority. [Centralization.] Think about it, and you’ll be able to grasp second amendment issues better.

The ‘force’ is with us originally when there was no centralization for generations and it is not debatable nor negotiable. What makes it non-negotiable is that centralization has attempted to substitute itself for the optimal and most righteous force for meeting and managing violent crime. This is a disease. The error conservatives, independents and libertarian candidates for President make is in thinking that it somehow is negotiable or that some regulation or gun control is reasonable. Actually, gun control is an interference with our ability to meet and fight crime and is a challenge to our sovereign authority. This needs to be understood by any candidate who says he or she will reduce the size of government.

Without the repeal of gun control, you will not be able to begin the process of reducing government. How does this play for a candidate? Simple: stumping for the repeal of gun control reflects the proper understanding of the relationship between the government and the governed. For all the speeches on the stump, nothing could say it better. The key is not to get rid of guns as a solution to violence, the key is to get rid of gun control as one major contributor to violence.

In being the lethal force which backs our sovereignty, there is no so-called controversy about “guns.” One either respects us as the sovereign or one gives out signals that we are not respected as the sovereign. The first thing candidates need to comprehend is that the armed citizen is where violent crime is fought best. Restore this in the major cities – through a repeal of gun control – and crime will drop. We have been saying this for decades. But the eloquence of the armed citizen – the real core of the concept as a mainstream value and not a ‘single issue of guns’ – is that armed citizens show that there is little need for the second-guessing impositions that eventually, consistently, become big government. Violence is an excuse to be radical. Gun control grows violence, and voila, a necessity for yet another bureaucracy.

As crime grows – including the threat of terrorism – so grows the government. Unwind gun control and violent crime will shrink. This is the non-violent function of the second amendment in action. Impeaching centralization.

One of our candidates for public office told me that he would not stump for second amendment rights because it was a single issue and he wanted to win. He lost.

An affirmation of second amendment values must be part of the platform and boldly so. This is no ‘single issue’, but more of an aggregate of mainstream values in one value. Enunciating seriousminded affirmation of the armed citizen will telegraph unmistakably to constituents how you resonate with all other values you want to talk about, and you will attract voters across party lines; they will know. I urge my favorite candidate to please stump for the repeal of gun laws as integral to safer streets as the first step to reducing the size of government.

You won’t get smaller government without it, and it explains why we’re not there yet. If a conservative, libertarian or independent takes the oval office and we still don’t see smaller government, then there won’t be a penny’s bit o’ difference at all.

John Longenecker is author of Even Safer Streets 2011 – The Second Amendment as a Mainstream Value, now available worldwide.