If you spend any time in libertarian circles, you will likely hear the term ‘Non-Aggression Principle’ more times than you care to. Among many factions of the liberty movement growing all across the US, the NAP is generally held as the most sacred principle in the libertarian philosophy. Simply put, it asserts that no physical violence against a person, nor theft of their property should ever be initiated; no violence is ever acceptable except in direct self-defense.

Property rights go hand in hand with the NAP and all liberties and rights generally seem to stem from those two governing principles. Working under these principles, it would go without saying that if a person has not committed violence, there could not possibly be any justification for anyone to steal from them, imprison them, or kill them. Therefore, those who remain consistent in their support for liberty and accountability could not support taking firearms away from people who have done no harm to anyone. This holds true regardless of 1) how many people use firearms to harm others and 2) whether a majority of politicians in a given group support removing weapons from innocent people by force.

Anti-gun Democratic politicians throughout the US and New Hampshire have been emboldened by the recent tragedy in Florida, and their calls for gun prohibition have become more transparent, radical, and violent. On Thursday, NH Journal reported that NH Rep. Katherine Rodgers (D-Concord) spoke to them about abolishing the right of individuals to own firearms in an interview:

Rep. Rogers

“I think that the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document and it’s always time to revisit and to look at our Constitution…. So I think having this discussion [sic] is good, and maybe the op-ed by Justice Stevens leads to a lot of interesting discussion. That’s a good thing. I don’t know if I’m ready to say let’s get rid of the Second Amendment, but I think it’s an interesting discussion for everybody to have,” Rogers said.

This Democrat state representative is proudly supporting what seems to be the opinion of other New Hampshire Democratic politicians – the government should prohibit the possession of firearms by individuals. If ultimately enforced, this would, of course, involve the confiscation of millions of firearms from New Hampshire residents. Since very few Granite State gun owners would voluntarily surrender their means of protection from burglars and tyrants, law enforcement officials would ultimately be dispatched to each and every one of their homes to confiscate their firearms – using firearms of their own. Applying the Non-Aggression Principle to this case would clearly explain why this would be an act of violence. The politicians and law enforcement agents would be guilty of initiating violence against peaceful people like you and me in order to confiscate our firearms.

This is not the first time that a politician has supported initiating violence against peaceful people. In fact, though it may seem to be true that only some elected politicians support violence against Americans, almost none of them do anything to end the mass government theft from Americans which is backed up by the threat of violence. Representative Rogers takes it to the next level, however. Just a few months ago, she pleaded guilty to physically assaulting a citizen volunteer during a recount for a senate race that took place in November of 2017. That citizen happened to be an advocate of the 2nd amendment in New Hampshire. Being a powerful Democrat with many political connections in Concord, it’s hardly surprising that she received no real punishment for this politically-inspired crime. She was technically placed on probation for a year and was ordered by the judge to attend anger management classes. What followed was a serious campaign in New Hampshire to pressure Rogers to resign, having disgraced the New Hampshire Government and her office. She did not resign. Like many radical Democratic politicians, she seems to think that it’s justifiable to physically harm those who support the right to bear arms.

In summary, a woman who literally used violence against a political opponent is now asserting that everyone who owns firearms is inherently violent, and is considering the idea of sending government agents with AR-15’s to their homes to violently confiscate their firearms and imprison or kill those who resist. Is the answer to punish the nation’s least violent people because of the actions of a psychopath/murderer who happened to use a firearm to kill people?

Who’s the real violent threat?

Categories: Opinion