In a victory for Maryland concealed carry, open carry, and gun Rights, Carroll County has passed resolution 884-2013, a Second Amendment Preservation Act.
“The Board reasonably believes the MFSA to be “pretended” (unconstitutional) legislation and be it further resolved that the Board, in affirmation of the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Carroll County, herein direct that Carroll County Government will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcing any element of the MFSA that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms” [Source Legislation]
- Bans 45 types of Rifles
- Bans magazines carrying more than 10 bullets, criminalizes the utilization of said magazines already owned
- Deputizes doctors against patients, encourages reporting of gun owners to government, prohbits ownership of guns by “mentally ill” deemed so by the State
- Requires fingerprinting for new handgun purchases
- Requires licensing and training for new handgun purchases
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” -Thomas Jefferson
The Right to bear arms is the fabric upon which other Rights find their peace and defense.
An individual must be able to defend his own life to exist, thus, the Right to bear arms is self-evident, accompanying your existence.
Without the conscious you, without the ability to make the choices which define and make your life, without your ability and freedom to reason and act, of what use is your body, your life, to you?
Those who wish to attack this Right, to limit this Right, to “eliminate” this Right of yours in their minds and their life, do not understand why it is needed, and it is because of that lack of knowledge, and out of fear of their recognized ignorance & incapability to motivate themselves to learn about this subject, that they resort to the monopoly of force, government, for a “solution”.
If and when you NEED the Right to bear arms, you NEED it; your life is dependent on it, and thus, all your other Rights become dependent on it.
Gun owners do not wish knowledge-by-experience upon those who oppose guns, but knowledge on this subject through self-motivation. If someone is choosing to defend their own life with Arms, there is a reason for it.
And if an individual using a gun understands what comes out the other end of a gun, and understands the associated responsibilities & consequences, the reasoning behind the use of guns is most likely the defense of one’s Life, Rights, & Property, & that of others.
Maryland concealed carry, open carry, and gun Rights activists are well-aware of these facts, which is why they are willing to openly and publicly defend these Rights, something a criminal planning a heist or crime would not do.
If an individual does not understand these ideas, such as the individual behind the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, and has the ability to purchase guns or other weapons, or steal those of others, to be used to attack and murder, are guns not the most efficient method of defending the Rights of the victims from that individual?
If someone is choosing to attack another’s life with guns, there is a reason for it, despite it being invalid, there exists a reason within that respective person’s mind. When that person is taking action, the existence of a valid obstacle, besides verbal negotiation, which there may not be time for, such as guns in the hands of potential victims, is the best negotiation there can be.
As Reason points out, William S. Burroughs said,
How is the solution to a murderer with an advanced weapon to make a law or set of laws limiting and restricting the Right to Self Defense and ownership over advanced weapons by responsible individuals & victims?
If Adults within the Newborn School were allowed to bear arms, such as the teachers, and not restricted by living in a State where assault weapons are already banned (yep) , or working in a School which has banned all types of arms, couldn’t there have been an actual hope for all the lives who were at risk with a response time that didn’t put more at risk?
Gun Owners not only defend their own Rights when defending their Life, Rights, & Property, but also, those of others. Self-Defense is a valiant NO to those who believe there is valid reason to dedicate their lives to theft, fraud, & assault. It is security by thought, by idea; every life defended by guns puts fear in those who wish to assault the other Rights of another individual.
The very possible existence of something that could end their life upon intrusion deters criminals, & logically, would only defer even more, individuals who wish to assault others in hopes of national spotlight, which easy to come by when there is an anti-self defense, anti-guns, anti-Rights, agenda to be pushed. One fact lost in the media’s transparent agenda to assault Rights is that mass-shootings are not on the rise, and in-fact, the opposite is true. Could it be that the mass media’s coverage, especially biased coverage, of shootings is on the rise?
In my opinion, the Right to Bear Arms really does not need this type of defending, but it has it, and yet there are still tyrants and those willing to support them who seek to send men with guns (police, various government officials) to confiscate guns from individuals who were forced into the hassle of legally registering them with the government.
I am not forgetting real criminals, because real criminals, who display characteristics similar to many in Congress, have no respect for the law, and thus, an anti-gun law would not apply to them, just as it does not apply to government (LAPD says send Cops with guns to Schools, but definitely not Free Individuals) .
Law-abiding Citizens who registered their guns have more respect for the law than most others, because they must learn it and understand its substantial effect on their own lives, Rights, and those of others. Law-abiding Citizens may not even be law-abiding Citizens by their own definition, but realize a higher authority that actually works, compared to a government loose of its Constitutional chains, and that authority is themselves, their integrity, their virtue. As a wise individual once said (let me know accuracy & author if you could find it),
“Laws are not created for virtuous individuals”
Those who seek information on laws regarding concealed carry and open carry, and register their guns, do so because they value the Right to Self-Defense, their lives, their property, and that of others, and wish it not to be threatened by imprisonment and force, which is why after the Newborn shooting, gun-sales increased. While due to many factors, I have to note that the boost in gun sales, for those who don’t already know, is partly due to a renewed threat by government and its supporters to limit and restrict their Right to Self Defense, the Right to Bear Arms, more than it already is, and partly due to the security that the Right to Bear Arms actually provides against individuals like the Newborn shooter.
And when I say that the Right to bear arms does not need this type of defending, I really get back to my main point, the Right to Bear Arms being the Right that secures other Rights.
To argue against the Right to bear arms is to argue against Rights, because it is an argument against self-defense, and that itself, while repetitive, is an argument against self-ownership.
I am going to make the assumption that for those reading this, I need not defend your ownership over your body, over yourself, and anything you believe exists within your body and mind. That argument is consistently made over and over again by everything every man produces and more publicly, does its own defending.
If your ability and Right to Free Speech is being attacked, truly being attacked, don’t you NEED the Right to self-defense, the Right to bear arms?
If your Right to your Religion, to not have or practice a Religion, is attacked, don’t you NEED the Right to self-defense, the Right to bear arms?
If you cannot protest unjust rule, if there exists individuals who impose rule upon you, your family, your neighbors, that violates life, property, and Rights, if your Right to protest is limited and restricted, don’t you NEED the Right to self-defense, the Right to bear arms?
If your life is at risk, the life of others, by someone who wishes to take it, don’t you NEED the Right to self-defense, the Right to bear arms?
If your livelihood is under attack, your daily activity unjustly limited and restricted, don’t you NEED the Right to self-defense, the Right to bear arms?
Realize that, and you will understand why any “compromise” with a gun-owner on his Rights, why to compromise ones self-defense and that of the individuals of the society which we live in, is a surrender to those whose goal is the theft and assault of Rights and Life.
I applaud the courageous leadership in defense of Rights by Carroll County, and can only hope the other counties within this country look to you for advice. Maybe Beretta can reconsider leaving Maryland, and re-locate its business and jobs to Carroll County, where jobs and Rights are surely appreciated and defended.