Rising Voices of Civil Disobedience

In a piece penned for PJ Media, Paul Hsieh asks, Would New Gun Laws Spark Widespread Civil Disobedience?  Hsieh cites numerous sheriffs, sheriff associations, and a number of state legislatures which appear to support an answer in the positive to the question, which is also a positive.  Towards the end of his piece, Hsieh states the following.

No one can know exactly how this will play out. This will depend on how strongly the central authorities wish to enforce the law in the teeth of the defiance, and how committed gun-rights supporters are to sustained civil disobedience. If history is any guide, violence is not out of the question, even if cooler heads on both sides do not wish it. New gun laws could be the political equivalent of a spark thrown onto dry tinder.

Violence is indeed a possibility if the government moves forward in attempts to strengthen legislation to solidify their position that guns should only be in the hands of the government, and certain chosen elitist bodyguards, all in direct violation of the Second Amendment, an amendment that allegedly guarantees an inalienable right, which quite evidently, in the eyes of the state, is alienable.

While I am pleased to note rising voices of civil disobedience in this matter, a more principled reason for the right to keep and bear arms is stated clearly by Billy Beck in a post from June 10, 2009 titled “Why Do I Fight For 2A Rights?”, which was written in response to a comment by an individual who lived under communism.

I have more principled reasons for my stand on owning firearms, and I don’t care one whit in the world for the Second Amendment. It means nothing to me. My rights have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, and when it dawns on people that it has finally been erased—the principal danger of all political premises posed as “social contracts”—my rights will still validly exist, even if I die defending them. I own firearms because I have a right to private property. That is the First Thing.

As Billy states in closing, toujours l’audace.”

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/18 at 11:04 AM
  1. I’ve always had a problem with the word “guarantee” regarding the 2nd, for clearly it does not. Seems like the 2nd simply gives certain people the tools with which to attack property rights, even incrementally.

    No one gets to take me or my stuff and I need no verification from anyone else to back that up.

    As I had written elsewhere long ago: “My rights are not dependent upon your acceptance.”

    That is the basis for everything human on this planet, everything else is subordinate.

    Imagine a 1st ammendment that said, “No person nor their property shall be infringed.”

    There would be no need for any others.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/19  at  01:40 PM






Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

<< Back to main