On the Justness of Bearing Arms

Zenith Firearms Uncategorized 5 Comments 1088 Views

Alas, the long-anticipated Lobby Day is upon us! Divided and busy as we are today between the SHOT Show in Las Vegas and Capitol Square in Richmond, we have not failed to leave for your enjoyment and encouragement this Lobby Day-commemorative blog post, authored by Zenith’s vice president, Andy Eckert:

The enemies of liberty and justice want few things more than to deceive and confuse people as to the righteousness of the cause for which many will lobby in Richmond today.

Accordingly, I’d like to articulate what I believe is the pure and just basis on which millions of Virginians can, do, and must demand that their right to keep and bear arms not be infringed. I hope this will be understood as in great contradistinction to what is said about us by liars, and that it will persuade some noble-hearted but yet unconvinced to join us going forward.

In 1967, California’s Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, signed into law the Mulford Act, which banned Californians from carrying loaded weapons in public. The sole intended target of this law was the Black Panther Party, whose members had recently taken to armed patrolling of Oakland neighborhoods, in order to monitor the city’s police officers and confront their brutality toward black residents.

On the substance of the new law, Reagan foolishly remarked that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” and further, that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

No hardship, that is, on citizens who were white and too indoctrinated to recognize or care about injustices regularly perpetrated against their black neighbors. Ronald Reagan, probably one of the most celebrated Republican politicians in modern history, was tragically wrong on this topic (among others). Here’s my point: The basis on which millions of Virginians demand the right to keep and bear arms is not a respecter, let alone a product, of anyone’s political party. Rather, it is an objective ethical basis, and the political party that would thrive had better respect it!

I’m no fan of the Black Panther Party’s overall ideology, but I share its want of an end to systemic injustice, not the least example of which has been, and still is, the brutal, tyrannical, and lawless behavior of many police officers across our nation. Accordingly, far from it being preposterous for private individuals to be armed sufficiently to resist criminal police officers, and especially SWAT teams, it is critical that they be so armed! And note: Only the bad cops will be offended by what I just said.

Every Virginian, and every person in the world, who is not himself a duly convicted capital offender, has the right by God to shoot rapists-, murderers-, and kidnappers-in-progress with the firearm of her choice. And it makes zero difference whether the offender is a homeless person, a police officer, or a king. This standard applies to all: We may do no violence to our neighbor. And if we do, even if we’re the king, our neighbor has the right to use force sufficient to stop us. Take careful note of the last part of that sentence: I said force, not violence.

Stop obfuscating in your propaganda, foolish anti-gunners, and allow obvious differences to remain clear. Let violent be the label for criminals who forfeit their lives when they begin to commit one or more such offenses as I’ve already mentioned. Accordingly, those who would use force to cut that violence short are not themselves violent, but just. And these two characters, the violent and the just, are as different as night and day.

Almost if not to a man, it is the just you’ll find lobbying for their rights in Richmond today. It is the Jew, the Christian, the Muslim, the minority, the foreigner, the disabled, the widow, the orphan, the homeschooler, and the anti-vaxer who are just and right to meet your projection of violence upon them with overwhelming force. These, the present or future objects of your persecution, are who confront you peacefully in our state capital today, and who you understandably, nonetheless wickedly, seek to disarm.

Zenith FirearmsOn the Justness of Bearing Arms
Zenithfirearmsadmin

Zenith Firearms

About this author

5 Comments

  1. Ahmad Faour

    Reply

    Outstanding, Andy.

  2. Brian M

    Reply

    Beautifully said.

  3. Dale Roberts

    Reply

    Well said brother.

  4. Lance

    Reply

    Well reasoned, very true, and extremely timely. Thank you.

    Those who would trade liberty for theoretical security will in the end have neither.

  5. Joe Bright

    Reply

    Cut straight to the truth. Well said.

    No degree of “consent of the governed” can legitimize unlawful government.

    There is no compromise to liberty that is not tyranny.

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT