When I first started writing here, I ran into a former associate pastor at my church who is also a gun guy. I told him what I was doing, and he asked me about AWR Hawkins over at Breitbart. He was a big fan.
Of course, I knew Hawkins and his work. I still follow his writing at that site, and today, I've got something we all need to read.
See, we've talked a lot about Jeanine Pirro's comments about carrying in our nation's capital. Some are pointing out she's just talking about enforcing existing law, while others point out she's opted not to enforce other laws, so why this one?
But Hawkins notes a deeper argument is lost in all of this.
Lost in the feeding frenzy arising from Jeanine Pirro’s comments on carrying guns lawfully vs. unlawfully in Washington, DC is the fact that all gun control is unnatural in principle.
And because gun control is unnatural, it should be abolished. Every last bit of it.
I spoke on this topic at Young America’s Foundation Reagan Ranch conference in March 2025. I told the conference attendees then, as I am telling you now, that the unnatural aspect of gun control is readily apparent in the way gun control laws hinder or prevent the exercise of our God-given right to self-defense. And by hindering or preventing self-defense, gun control undermines the Second Amendment in general.
Consider this: In the majority opinion for McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day… and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”
In other words, individual self-defense is the hinge on which the door of the Second Amendment swings. Remove that hinge and the door collapses or, at best, falls crooked and its function within the door frame is lost. This scenario is both unnatural and untenable when applied to our Second Amendment rights.
Go and read the rest.
The truth is that he's right. Every bit of gun control is unnatural.
The idea behind natural rights is that these are the rights that everyone has, regardless of any governmental authority. They cannot be granted because we have them simply by being human, which means a government can only interfer with them. Nothing else.
When Ugg and Ogg were screwing about in the cave, sharpening sticks in a fire while experimenting with shaping this stuff they called "flint," they had the right to keep and bear arms. This was something they had simply because they were living, breathing humans, primative though they might be. Throughout the years, this right was retained until governments formed to manage large groups of people.
Then, rulers decreed that anyone not them couldn't have arms. Those arms were a threat to the rulers, and they knew it, so they took the arms from everyone they could. Maybe they allowed hunting weapons such as relatively light bows, maybe a sling to ward off the wolves from the sheep, but they started seeing arms control as a means of maintaining control.
But the right that Ugg and Ogg first held never went away.
The act of restricting arms is a manmade concept, and as such runs against the natural order of humans having the means to defend themselves. Those means are why we evolved into what we are today, the apex predator on the planet. Unlike tigers and wolves, we lack claws. Our teeth aren't efficient at ripping the throats out of other animals. We needed arms to protect ourselves from the other predators, to gather prey, and to become the dominant species.
Restricting the access to weapons runs against hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, the epitome of an unnatural act.
Hawkins absolutely nailed it. This idea should be required reading at every level of education.
