 |
speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
After the smoke cleared, the outcome of the push for reforms of the gun control laws ended in disappointment for the president and advocates of stricter regulations. The National Rifle Association (NRA), in defiance of the public will, managed to corral just enough votes to thwart new legislation.
What was most striking (for outsiders) was the argument that citizens must have combat weapons in order to prevent their own government from becoming tyrannical.
Most scholars agree that when the second amendment was adopted, it was conceived as a defense against an invasion of foreign armies, most notably the King of England, not as a stand-by rebellion against federal authority.
What was most striking (for outsiders) was the argument that citizens must have combat weapons in order to prevent their own government from becoming tyrannical.
Most scholars agree that when the second amendment was adopted, it was conceived as a defense against an invasion of foreign armies, most notably the King of England, not as a stand-by rebellion against federal authority.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
To throw some light on the exact meaning of those words -and its pre-revolutionary origins- the Supreme Court in 1887 gave this constitutional interpretation:
Undoubtedly, the framers . . . had for a long time been absorbed in considering the arbitrary encroachments of the Crown on the liberty of the subject . . . .
This view is supported by the words, “necessary to the security of a free state”- or in other words, a nation independent of its imperial origins. A kind of last defense ad hoc army against imperial invasion.
"Sic semper tyrannis"
Wayne LaPierre, CEO and Executive Vice President of the NRA appeared before a Senate Judiciary Committee in the aftermath of the calamity at Newtown. From that meeting a source give us this interesting quote:"Senator, I think without any doubt, if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."
But if LaPierre feels there’s a risk of tyranny today, let him say it clearly. Who has the power to subjugate the United States today? From where does he expect this tyranny to emerge? If he knows something about an approaching police state, it really is his patriotic duty to inform Congress.
He didn't reveal anything but he implies it clearly enough. The threat that Americans must be armed against is their own government. He certainly wasn’t talking about an Iranian invasion or a Neo-Soviet Russia, Communist China. This tyrant will be home-grown.
He didn't reveal anything but he implies it clearly enough. The threat that Americans must be armed against is their own government. He certainly wasn’t talking about an Iranian invasion or a Neo-Soviet Russia, Communist China. This tyrant will be home-grown.
