Listen to God\’s Voice

Words of wisdom for today

Targeting Guns: Good News, Bad News and Insight


Written by Selwyn Duke

Monday, 23 March 2009 03:21


A federal government action that would have undercut the civilian ammunition supply has been reversed. But since similar threats to Second Amendment rights lie on the horizon, we must remain ever vigilant. And, first and foremost, this means engaging the gun-rights battle on the cultural level.

Man with shotgunIn Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals, people such as community agita . . . I mean, organizers are instructed to attack adversaries where they least expect. Alinsky acolyte Barack Obama takes this advice to heart, and this might explain a recently thwarted back-door assault on Second Amendment rights.
At issue was a Department of Defense (DOD) directive prohibiting the sale of spent brass shell casings to domestic ammunition manufacturers, a measure that would have increased the cost and reduced the availability of ammunition for citizens. As Drew Zahn writing at WorldNetdaily tells us, however, the policy has been reversed:

Responding to two Democratic senators representing outraged private gun owners, the Department of Defense announced last night it has scrapped a new policy that would deplete the supply of ammunition by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass.
The policy already had taken a bite out of the nation’s stressed ammunition supply, leaving arms dealers scrambling to find ammo for private gun owners.

This is good news, but, as I often point out, such things are simply successful defensive measures. While the left constantly proposes statist policy, traditionalists simply attempt to block the punches. But since a few punches inevitably land in every fight, this guarantees continual implementation of statist measures and incessant movement toward the left.
And, as far as the matter of ammunition goes, another big right fist is being clenched with a piece of legislation titled the “Ammunition Accountability Act.” It has already been introduced in many states (including my drunk-on-power state) and mandates that all handgun and certain caliber rifle ammunition would have to be “coded”; this means that a code would have to be stamped on every bullet so that if one was recovered at a crime scene, it could be traced back to the buyer. Yes, what a great idea. I’m sure that instead of stealing ammo, criminals will now just happily produce valid identification at gun shops and purchase it on the radar screen. After all, you’d hate to run afoul of gun laws while contemplating your next bank robbery, home invasion or drug-trafficking escapade.
This law also seems to include a provision levying a five-cent per cartridge tax, meaning the cost of a standard 20-round box of ammo would increase by $2. Yet, this isn’t the law’s most onerous aspect. It also mandates that all uncoded ammo – that is, every bit currently owned by Americans – would have to be disposed of by a certain date in 2011. I suppose that’s change you can believe in.
Now we come to the matter of changing what people believe. As with all issues, the Second Amendment battle cannot be won in the legal realm because, like it or not, no document can thwart the will of a people bent on contravening it. Over time, the legal comes to reflect the morals and beliefs of the people; thus, if we cannot prevail on the battlefield of ideas, all is for naught.
So I’ll address the importance of gun ownership without delving into the legal realities of the Second Amendment. As I do this, however, note that I’m not minimizing its significance. It’s simply that most reading this agree on the constitutional matter, on the idea that the “right to bear arms” was enshrined into law to forestall tyranny. But while that has been explained ad infinitum, questions that are used as, uh, ammunition against us remain unanswered.
When I was a much younger man, I was listening to a then-popular radio talk show host who was, you might say, an agnostic on the gun issue. While asserting that he didn’t advocate gun control, he very sincerely stated that he had never heard a good answer to a certain question. That is, by what logic do we draw the line after guns? Why not allow ownership of more formidable weapons, such as artillery pieces? On the other hand, why not disallow firearms and draw the line after knives and clubs? Is it all arbitrary?
Many second-amendment activists may scoff at such questions, but, let’s be honest, they’re good ones. They have a good answer, too. And if we’re not willing to provide a practical answer to practical questions, don’t be surprised when we lose the legal debates.
Now, since many Americans don’t consider fighting a government that possesses sound-wave weapons, blinding lasers and heat-seeking targeting devices to be practical, let’s consider something indisputably practical: the general defense of life, limb and property.
Even if a citizen isn’t worried about what government might do, he should be worried about what it fails to do, given its dereliction of duty during events such as the L.A. riots and Hurricane Katrina. During those tragedies, the authorities pulled back, allowing innocents such as Reginald Denny to twist in the wind. Even more damnably, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin ordered the disarming of good citizens in Katrina’s wake, thereby placing them at the mercy of rampaging gangs. It was truly immoral, the equivalent of declawing a cat and throwing him to the wolves. Quite simply, the government wasn’t there during citizens’ time of need, and the only ones who could defend themselves were those bearing arms.
So, why allow guns? The answer is: proportionate force. When criminals attack, they don’t come with artillery pieces. Nor are they medieval romanticists who confine themselves to knives, axes and maces. They invariably have semi or fully-automatic weapons; thus, unless good citizens are similarly equipped, they cannot exercise proportionate force, something enshrined as a right in law.
This is one good reason why citizens deserve access to state-of-the-art firearms. Who would dispute this? At risk of sounding clichéd, only those who would force Americans to bring a knife to a gunfight.

Selwyn Duke
is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.


Written by tfheringer

April 14, 2009 at 3:04 am

Posted in Uncategorized

%d bloggers like this: