Anti-Gunners Kill More Jobs with Bloomberg-Style Laws

Michael Schaus
|
Posted: Jul 14, 2014 1:04 AM
Anti-Gunners Kill More Jobs with Bloomberg-Style Laws

America’s largest shotgun manufacturer has decided to move more of its business to the Republic of Texas. The news that O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. chose not to expand their business in Connecticut shouldn’t really come as a surprise. States that have zealously pursued more restrictive gun control policies have seen their historically loyal firearm manufacturers begin an exodus to friendlier locales. Mossberg has decided to move more of its manufacturing process to Texas in light of Connecticut’s recent legislative attempts to demonize their industry; such as implementing a confiscation registration process, and outlawing future sales of various firearms categorized by a specific behavior (i.e. assault weapons).

The recent announcement from Mossberg goes to prove that anti-gun policies are, in fact, wrong on virtually every political level. They are generally unpopular, morally abhorrent, administratively unenforceable, socially ineffective, and economically suicidal. In fact, as I have previously written, there is a very strong correlation between gun rights and general prosperity. And that correlation does not exist merely because a few jobs may, or may not, be lost due to a few Bloomberg-approved laws and regulations.

Laws like Connecticut’s recent gun-control attempts (or Chicago’s gun ban; or New York’s firearm restrictions; or California’s weapon prohibitions; or…) are generally a barometer for individual liberty. After all, a government that is distrusting of individuals’ power to protect themselves is unlikely to trust an individual’s right to engage freely in the markets, manage business without beauracratic oversight, or make personal decisions about their lifestyle choices. (This explains why the anti-gun crusader, Mike Bloomberg, also has a penchant for outlawing high-capacity sodas.)

In fact, gun laws tend to infringe on more rights than merely those enumerated in the Second Amendment. Confiscation, criminalization, and registration arguably infringe on property rights as much as anything else. After all, it seems a little absurd that the state should be so interested in the private, and legal, property of law-abiding gun owners; unless the state has a disposition to micro-managing the lives of its citizens.

A dissolution of property rights, mixed with the institutionalized distrust of average citizens, seems to create a toxic climate of statism and government overreach. Governments, in general, tend to grow jealous of power held by individuals and the free markets. Cities like Chicago, New York, and LA, are not plagued with violence and poverty only because of their anti-gun laws… But those laws are indicative of a larger government-down approach to “managing” and “regulating” individuals into compliance with a statist agenda. The people who believe Chicago’s gun laws are too relaxed, are the same technocrats who think America’s most overpaid (and underperforming) school district just needs to hire a few more administrators in order to make things work. And this should probably tell us something.

Yes: Mossberg’s move to Texas makes sense on a political level… But it also makes sense on a business level. Connecticut has not only demonstrated that they are opposed to Mossberg’s industry, but they have shown that personal property, private enterprise, and individual liberty are secondary to the interests of a few legislative “leaders” in the state house. Rights, in modern-day Connecticut, are allowed at the whim of the state; as opposed to government actions being allowed with an eye to the preservation of individual liberties.

So, while Texas continues to build their economy, create good-paying manufacturing jobs, and expand the protections of our enumerated rights, Connecticut will continue to infringe the rights of its citizens and deteriorate its economy. Mossberg’s CEO said, “Investing in Texas was an easy decision. It’s a state that is not only committed to economic growth but also honors and respects the Second Amendment.” Yeah… What he failed to point out, is that those two characteristics are closely related in a free society.

Gun control has always been bad economic policy in America… Not just because it moves jobs to the Republic of Texas; but because it requires that governments disregard the foundation of a free and open civilian economy.

Now, if Connecticut would just start targeting those high capacity sodas, maybe they can earn the Bloomberg seal of approval for nannyism.