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.