While many states are upholding citizens’ rights to own guns for home defense and have distributed concealed carry permits, the anti-gun fanatics are leveling more unconstitutional legislation at our second amendment rights.
For example, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is reviewing proposals to prevent gun owners from using state-leased recreational lands. This will make it more difficult for gun-owners to test and use their rifles for hunting or home protection.
There are many recreational lands that are advocated to be closed to gun practice. Some of those include Sutton Lake, Chatham, Pee Dee River and others.
For those who wonder why Americans should be legally allowed to have guns in the first place, there are some considerations worth remembering by all parties concerned. First, the US Constitution’s second amendment states that people have a right to own and bear arms. It is, as the Founding Fathers knew, a natural right (i.e. an inherent right individuals possess that exists independently of government and which government MUST respect). More to the point, the principle of self-defense justifies gun ownership. If we have a moral and legal right to use lethal force as a last resort against our would-be murderers, guns are then necessary to help implement our self-protection. The right to self-defense justifies gun ownership for Canadians and other nations as well.
If the aforementioned proposal in America becomes law, gun owners will be forced to finance the antigun legislation with their own tax dollars. This would be unethical since the government has no right to force people to finance what contradicts their constitutional rights. This is all the more reason for American gun-owners to fight this proposal.
Not only that, but the proposal, if approved by lawmakers, will also start a slippery slope leading to a nationwide banning of gun training from recreational lands. This will not only hinder gun owners from sharpening their defense and hunting skills, but also render the possession of guns almost useless. With fewer places available at which to test and zero rifles there is greater potential for gun accidents and an increase in danger towards one's own life—as when an unzeroed weapon become incapable of hitting the burglar. Hence, this proposal contradicts our constitutional right to use arms for self-defense and only furnishes liberals with the excuse to ban guns later on.
The said proposal seeks to violate our rights by making a veiled attempt at stopping us from using guns without physically confiscating them (though physical confiscation will inevitably be the next step). If increasingly serious but minor restrictions are accepted into law, then people become acclimatized to increasingly greater restrictions that gradually lead to a gun ban. Then it becomes too late for anyone to do anything about a nationwide ban. This is what happened to Australia.
The remedy for second amendment activists is to awaken politicians to the principle involved. The principle of self-defense and of self-sustenance (as through hunting) must be used consistently to identify and oppose gun restrictions that violate our natural rights. People, politicians and especially law makers must examine what the legislation suggests, then check to see if it enhances or negates our rights to self-defense and self-sustenance.
They must realize that there is no use to having guns if you can not buy them, use them, train with them, or pay affordable prices for ammunition. Yet other states are reviewing proposals that aim to prohibit licenses for gun shops, ban gun shows, and make ammunition costs higher. Ignoring the self-defense principle, anti-gun democrats devise new ways to make the exercise of our self-defense more difficult.
When people forget the link between self-defense and the second amendment: they fall prey to new antigun proposals that are touted as “common-sense” restrictions on some aspect of gun ownership and use. In reality, such restrictions contradict our right to self-defense and lead to more serious compromises later on.
We must override the antigun fanatics by reminding our political representatives of the principle of self-defense and urge them to strike down legislation that makes it harder to use firearms. With some persistence and vigilance the pro-defense crowd will continue to make more successes such as those we have enjoyed in the past.
As earlier noted, another anti-gun proposal is the encoding of ammunition. After having tried to register guns, Maryland’s liberals are now urging the nationwide registering of ammunition. When you read the phrase “encoded ammunition” it means registering all bullets and cartridge cases, taking all uncoded ammo from gun owners, and jacking up monetary costs in buying each new stack of ammunition.
Aside from the fact that too much of our tax money will support this plan at the expense of supporting more effective crime-fighting programs, the registration aspect alone will escalate to a gun ban. This is similar to what Hitler did when he confiscated every citizen’s guns after a successful registration plan. (Of course, rationalizations were made that never mentioned a gun ban in Germany and Austria). Now, anti-gun democrats what to practice their fascism to contradict the US constitution’s Second Amendment.
Yet one question remains throughout all these antigun plots: does the individual citizen have a right to self-defense or not? You can not play it both ways.
