The answer is not gun control
“In its proper constitutional sense, the term [militia] means all the able-bodied people who can be trained and disciplined to act in the community’s defense when it’s attacked. Since it encompasses every able-bodied person, it does not refer to those—such as the police, the military, or even the National Guard—who formally compose the official defense forces of the nation. Every citizen able and willing to act in an emergency becomes a potential defender against attacks aimed at the general population. Unfortunately, because of the anti-gun folly of the leftist media and politicians, we have lost sight of this vital element of our defense... The anti-gun crowd seeks to establish a modern version of [the medieval era], a kind of bureaucratic feudalism, in place of the republican self-government established by our Constitution... The answer is not gun control, but self-government, self-defense, and self-control. We must act to live as free people, else like sheep for the slaughter, we will die, and freedom with us.” —Alan Keyes
posted by HeavyHanded at
5:09 PM
2 Comments:
In regard to this and the other following 'gun control' posts:
What seems to be missing in the Liberal mindset regarding the Second Amendment is that a free people must ultimately be able to defend itself, not just from foreign threats, but from internal threats from their own government. The former is best addressed by that governments military, regular as well as reserve, militia, national guard et al, but in the latter case those are precisely the institutions through which any internal threat would be imposed. Before dismissing this as crackpot paranoia, recall that it was an ‘internal’ threat from our own government, then the British Empire, against which the American Revolution was waged. It is not coincidental that Big Government loving Liberals miss this point while Big Government fearing Conservatives do not.
By
Anonymous, at 12:12 PM
Of course I do not see this as crackpot paranoia.
I am a pragmatist.
I am for 'small' government.
But, if I put on my 'idealist' hat, I say having no government at all would be best.
However, as previously stated, I am a pragmatist; and man being what he is, needs some government because we are unable to 'behave properly' without some governmental controls.
The caveat is, of course, that government is made up of men ... the very same creatures that are so imperfect that it breeds the necessity of government in the first place.
To leave the citizens unarmed against the real possibility of an out of control government is to undermine our rights to justice, domestic tranquility, liberty, and posterity - those small little things that the preamble of the U.S. Constitution called for.
By
HeavyHanded, at 8:31 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home