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.

In 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 WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	The Constitution Return the Constitution to its proper role as supreme law of the land, and as the restraint of fedgov power as it was intended to be, and most of these problems would disappear in short order.
	report abuse vote down vote up

March 23, 2009
Votes: +6

danwhitehead1 said:

Protection If the fedgov was truly interested in fulfilling one of its few and limited legitimate Constitutional duties/responsibilities, that of protecting us, it seems to me that there would be fedgov sponsored classes where private citizens would be taught how to use and maintain guns (or any weapon, for that matter). I sure won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen; not as long as the limp-wristed, the spineless and the power-hungry are in control. As I said before, soon only criminal scum and government myrmidons (please forgive the redundancy) will be the only persons carrying weapons.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 23, 2009
Votes: +6

Thomas F. Heringer said:

Rev. Thomas Heringer They say that guns kill people and therefore they should be banned. Two things to consider, first if this is true then no one including the military should have any kind of "gun", including bombs, grenade launchers, guided missiles, tanks, etc. Second, if this is true then lets ban all kinds of motor vehicles, this includes police vehicles and trucks, also of course this includes cars. Fortunately this is not true, guns do not kill people, people kill people it may be a cliche, but it is true.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 24, 2009 | url
Votes: +5

Gayle Williams said:

Dr. The liberal socialists,and the democrats, want two types of people, them and us. They want the power to be in charge and make a socialist nation with the government in control. The only way they really can do this is by taking our guns away just like hitler did. The forefathers had the intelligence to know that some day greed and the want of power would test us Americans in ways we wouldn't even know. Long ago it was said, that they could not just take our guns away, but over time, with a little by little slowly taking our rights away they would be able to ban arms because they would be able to convince enough people that we really don't need guns. The government is our friend, is what they want us to believe, and they have convinced a lot of people just that. America had better wake up now, and if we have to have another revolution, we better get started before it is to late. It would be ashame to lose all that we have ,and that all of the men and women that have given their lives for us to continue our lifestyle of freedom, it would all be for nothing.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 24, 2009
Votes: +3

MarkGlen said:

Spark a rally among the informed God has his people in this country that He has given certain talents and when each one takes care of his/her field of fire then Washington D.C. responds. There is one thing we all can do and that is distribute truth to our fellow man. When that is done,and done well, then there are those who have the talent gift of sparking a rally. Ronald Reagan had just taken office, two deacons were in jail in a Nebraska town for teaching in a church school without state authority. Fundamentalist Christians throughout the nation did everything they could do to get Nebraska to release the two deacons, but to no avail. I was painting a house in the city where I live. That evening when I got home I dialed a local Christian radio talk show and ask the host if I could read a letter on the air that I had sent to the local newspaper. (The editor of the paper would not print the letter.) As a result of reading that letter on the radio 2000 people responded, and contacted the President. The President's people went to Nebraska and convinced Nebraska legislators to change the law and allow church schools in Nebraska to operate without state approval. At the right time and place God used a house painter to rally 2000 people, from Texas, to get Nebraska to change a law. When the enemy, and maybe even your allies, think your are defeated strike back with all your might. But thats another subject. Give God the glory.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Lost my rights said:

Previous distruction of the 2nd Amendment We all have suffered one blow in the past of the 2nd Amendment with the Lautenberg Amendment which in itself violates 2nd Amendment. The supreme court ruled that it is an individual right there for making Lautenberg unconstitutional. I understand what it stood for, and by no means should anyone have to suffer at the hands of another, but this Amendment is so far reaching it leaves a door wide open for abuse. Not to mention how it was written into law in the first place. Now they wish to attack the ammo issue. Why? because our elected are playing word games with our constitution the same way a cheap attorney would do in court by saying... wait.. it says guns.. not ammo.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 27, 2009
Votes: +0

MarkGlen said:

The Second Amendment is clear “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” God, for one thing, established governments to punish crime, but what happens if governments are law-breakers also? For instance: Why should states be allowed to require a permit for a person to carry a concealed weapon when the federal Constitution guarantees our right to keep armed? Should federal police arrest state governments for breaking the law of the land? Since we are dealing with state governments maybe the U.S. Army should be called out to protect us from unconstitutional state laws. But then the federal government is so corrupt it would side with outlaw states. I can understand if some don’t want to own guns, but that doesn’t change the constitution.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +0