Donald Baker is correct when he reminds us that the Second Amendment is intended to give citizens a means to protect against the rise of a tyrannical government (“Don’t forget one key protection we need: against tyranny of government,” Letters, Jan. 20). Indeed, the First Amendment is intended to do the same.
Yet even though we have many restrictions on the First Amendment, opponents of gun control measures are allowed to openly preach insurrection against our government without ending up in jail, or worse. Meanwhile, as words like fascist, dictator, and tyranny are glibly thrown around, Egyptian citizens deposed a real dictator, without the protection of a First Amendment, and largely without guns.
Comments
Ya, how's it working out for those Egyptians now?
Well Ann, the egyptians are now under islamic rule, I pity the women. with the shape our government is in, we need our 2nd amendment.
Maybe we all should spend some time under the governrment that succeeds the overthrow of one tyrant.
Department of Homeland Security. Nice name, "homeland", "security", makes me feel all warm and cozy.
But exactly what IS the DHS? It is "cooperating" with our local police forces, training them, funding them so they can buy armored vehicles, high tech equipment, etc. Their goal is a rather undefined "to keep our nation safe", everything from immigration to cyber security. A sort of national police force of almost a quarter million people. The same folks that tell citizens they must submit to road blocks 100 miles from any border, state where they came from, where they are going to, etc. Sounds a bit like the Gestapo to me? But then I was born before all this "War on Terror" stuff, back when this country just bombed the bad guys to dust. Very intimidating bunch with their uniforms, dark glasses, and guns. Of course, all their actions are covered under the "Patriot Act", a misnomer if ever there was one. A true "Patriot" is always willing to be stopped at anytime, anywhere by armed government agents.
As to openly preaching insurrection against the government? Not hardly, how about defending the constitution and our form of government from those who would neuter it by passing unconstitutional laws? It isn't insurrection when the government has violated the contract with the people.
not to mention government having granted itself the authority to hold people without telling them why; bursting into homes with no search warrant; tapping into all our conversations, internet and phone; reserving the right to advanced weaponry including tanks, drones, etc., for themselves in the name of Home Security. Whose homes? Whose guns? A self-appointed group will have all the security they want (we will pay for it), personal security guards, their own license to carry--in defense of what and whom and against what and whom?
Be Discerning, America. The imposition of unconstitutional "orders" is upon us; do we want to wait for what's next?
Ahhh, am I to understand we would be much better off to get rid of our guns, see if the Royalty in Washington does become tyrannical and then try to fight back after they have created "security" forces like the DHS?.
That seems to be pretty stupid.
It'll be pretty hard to regain freedom once it has been usurped.
Until 2008 the prevailing opinion was that the 2nd Amendment was written as a protection for the 13 states to retain their own militias. As Jon Meacham in his recent bio of Jefferson makes clear, the fear at that time was of a Royalist government. It was not written as an individual right to bear arms. If you read the language in that context it is quite clear. So Donald Baker is wrong, and the current gun debate is not between constitution-loving Americans on one hand and tyrants-in-hiding Americans on the other. The gun manufacturers and their network of non-profit groups and political action committees pour tons of money into justifying their pursuit of profits through, among other things, appealing to 8 year olds to get involved with guns and attacking ANY effort to control access to firearms…as was made clear in another article in today’s Globe.
If governments persist in stripping our rights illegally and unconstitutionally, it may be up to 8-yr. olds learning HOW to bear arms, in order to rescue their own liberties.
We do a disservice to our democracy and to the people who truly live under tyranny, Ms. Davis writes. I fully agree...but see below
Yes Nahant, under our laws, please do not resist, fight back, or injure the other person while he attempts to kill or enslave you. You have no right to defend yourself, we will tell you what is acceptable.
All this blather about tyranny and fear of our government is all just a smokscreen. The 2nd ammendment states "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" , yet there is no well regulated militia in existence (other than the National Guard-operated by the state). If gun advocates were honest, and not phony liars, we would see militias in existence with firearms protocols in place. Instead, that portion of the ammendment is ignored and the only reason given to keep and bear arms is "so I can feel safe." Obviously not the intention of the founding fathers. It seems to me that gun owners are trying to compensate for some other failings.
forgot a few important commas there, bud.
That said, who cares about the 2A? It is way overblown. As human beings we have a natural right to self protection. We do not need to have it "granted" to us by a government. In the same vein, a government has no authority to take it away.
No one in the government was given any authority to tell a person what means they are allowed to use to defend themselves. If one wants to argue about "laws being passed, blah, blah, blah", that still flies in the face of a person having the natural right to self preservation and protection.
Only a fool would stand still while another said "Do not move, do not defend yourself while I beat you to death." To demand that another person take flight, try to escape is not that person's right. It is up to the individual to decide what will best protect his life. Not some foolish law written by others.