Our Guns Protect Us Against Tyranny
As Michael Gaddy pointed out when Obama was president, “’Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.’
~ Noah Webster
While we stumble along economically with bailouts, buyouts, and poor sales in almost all sectors, two products in America are seeing dramatic increases in sales: guns and ammo. People who never owned a gun before are buying; people are buying multiples of military style weapons and ammo is being bought by the case instead of by the box.
Many explain this away as folks simply worried that Obama will move to ban certain firearms, especially those referred to by the ignorant as ‘assault weapons,’ I believe the motivation to buy firearms and ammunition goes much deeper.
More and more Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the storm that is brewing on the horizon, a storm driven by the possibility of a complete economic collapse.
The more astute are reading the handwriting on the wall: military combat units being assigned for stateside duty to quell domestic disturbances, a militarization of law enforcement, and the fear of what will happen when the state is no longer able to provide monthly checks to the millions currently living on government handouts labeled as ‘entitlements.’
Americans are purchasing firearms and ammunition in record numbers, not because they believe 2009 will offer unusually good duck hunting, but because they fear the fallout from the coming economic storm and the state’s reaction to that fallout.
The larger question is: how many of those who have gone out and purchased firearms and ammo will actually use them? I believe a large number would bring those weapons to bear against criminals who would steal and threaten their families and property, but, how many would use them against the criminal state as it moves to seize their weapons, as was done in New Orleans, when the next ‘emergency’ occurs, be it an economic meltdown or terrorist attack?
Rest assured, there will be a great majority who will not stand against tyranny. Those who have ‘gone along to get along’ and those who have continually voted for the ‘lesser of two evils’ will capitulate and surrender their weapons, as cowards normally do. They will rue the day they failed to support those who stood for liberty such as Ron Paul. Remember, they were offered liberty, but chose instead to support the status quo, because, in their eyes, liberty could not be elected.
Those among us who are afraid to be free will surrender their guns, their families, and their freedom to tyranny. Do not place your freedom or trust in their hands or depend on them to cover your six.” See this.
Gaddy also has some words of wisdom on AK-47s: “Then there are those bastions of liberty in the pro-gun crowd who question why anyone would want to own an AK-47 or any other of those dastardly assault weapons. They contend there is no ‘legitimate’ reason to own one. Let me make this as simple as I can: I own a legal AK-47 and several other assault weapons so I can assault the tyrant who seeks to deprive me of my rights granted by my creator, or any other criminal who attempts to take that which is mine, or harm me and those I love. Simple enough?
From past experience I know I am going to catch a lot of flak for my opinion of concealed carry laws, because I believe them to be another form of registration. Gun owners who claim they are totally against ‘registration’ of firearms have no problem in registering themselves as gun owners. Most egregious is their paying the state to bestow on them the rights they already possess as free men.
If the true purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide the means to resist a tyrannical government, where is the logic in begging and paying that same government to allow us to possess the weapons to protect ourselves from their tyrannical pursuits? Groveling at the feet of tyrants is no reflection of courage.
Not only do concealed carry permit holders place themselves in a database available to all bureaucrats whose goal is to disarm everyone, they place themselves in the database of all law enforcement agencies. How convenient it must be for the cop who runs your drivers or vehicle license number to immediately know you are armed, what you drive, where you live, and in some cases, what type firearm you have.” See this.
The great Dr. Ron Paul makes the essential point with his characteristic eloquence: “Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King’s soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them. In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a ‘well-regulated militia,’ it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so. The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army. Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe — as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book ‘More Guns, Less Crime,’ scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control — like Washington DC — experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation’s capital, where the individual’s right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed. Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People’s lives and safety are at stake. Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.”
An attorney who worked for the government wrote an article published by the Department of Justice that acknowledged guns enable the people to resist tyranny. This is from the Office of Justice programs of the US Department of Justice: “NCJ Number
160180
Author(s)
A M Gottlieb
Date Published
1992
Length
8 pages
Annotation
The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that should a tyrannical power overtake the Nation, Americans will be able to defend themselves; because this danger always exists, gun control should be prohibited.
Abstract
The necessity of an armed populace was so unanimously advocated in the early Republic that it played a central part in the arguments of both sides in the debate over the Constitution. The writings of some of the framers of the Constitution show that they valued the right of individuals to possess arms for their personal and property protection as well as for the common defense. Those who would limit the interpretation of the right to bear arms only to an organized State militia argue that technological changes since 1791 have rendered an armed citizenry irrelevant for either national defense or resistance to domestic tyranny. They also argue that the amendment’s central purpose has no meaning in the modern age of weaponry, since a citizenry having only small arms would have no chance of defeating a modern army. This argument collapses under the lessons of history, which show that a revolutionary people with only small arms have defeated a modern army, such as in Iran and Nicaragua. Further, a people who enter an armed conflict with small arms can secure more sophisticated weaponry from outside sources. It is also important that in a free country the citizenry have arms to deter any renegade military leader who might consider challenging the popular government.” See this.
Let’s do everything we can to protect our right to own guns. Our life and liberty depend on it.
This article is republished from Lew Rockwell under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
