Thursday, April 01, 2010
Are you willing to take up arms against your government?
By Douglas V. Gibbs
While I was at the Showdown in Searchlight Tea Party on March 27, a news crew from Ireland approached my group and asked if we were willing to take up arms against our government. The woman standing next to me said, "Yes, my husband and I believe that we may have to do so, and we are willing to if needed."
When the television camera was pointed at me, and the microphone was thrust in my face, I said, "If necessary."
One wonders what would have happened differently in history if the people had been willing to stand up against tyranny more often. What would have happened if the people had stood up to the communist tyranny rising in the Soviet Union, or Hitler's regime? We know what happened when a bunch of colonists stood up to tyranny perpetrated by the British Empire - The United States of America was forged.
This is not to say that taking up arms against a tyrannical government should be taken lightly, either. As long as there is hope of turning things around in a non-violent manner, such a strategy of non-violence must be pursued. In other words, as long as we are able to vote the dirt bags out of office, and replace them with people of our choosing, an armed insurrection is the last thing we should consider.
The Founding Fathers knew that power can be an addictive thing. Once a government begins to expand, and grows to the point of taking the liberties of the people, it is only a matter of time before that government reaches a level of tyranny that can only be reversed by an armed revolution. This reality is one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
The reality of the possibility that tyranny may rise to take control of the U.S. Government is one of the main reasons for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment. The words used in that amendment are very specific, and were chosen for a specific reason.
"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." -- The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Each word, and each comma, were chosen carefully. Read it again, but carefully:
"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."
Notice that the words "Militia," "security," "free state," "right," and "shall not be infringed" are in the text of that amendment.
For the security of our free nation, to keep it free, the right to bear arms was considered to be a right by the Founders, and they believed that that right shall not be infringed for any reason. It is the people's duty, as far as they were concerned, to make sure that this nation remains one of liberty.
Now, when referencing the word "Militia" in the amendment, I am not saying that the Founding Father's were referring to groups like the Hutaree group recently arrested in Michigan, or at least not exactly as they are organized. The Militia is you and I. The people. The people were expected to be armed, and that militia was expected to be well regulated.
Regulated, in this context, does not mean "restricted," or "controlled." To be regulated, in those days, meant to "make regular," or to "put in good order." Like regular troops were to be well outfitted and equipped, and a well regulated militia was well outfitted and well equipped, well disciplined, paraded periodically, so that they would know how to line up in formation. That is what regulate meant. Everything that was written in the Constitution was written in context, specifically in the context of "What's been happening." The young nation had just fought a tyranny that controlled them through the means of a tyrannical, centralized government. Such a government, the Founders knew by experience, squashes liberty. Centralized government also comes naturally to men because men seek power, and the people are easy to be led into a culture of complacency and dependency. That kind of power needed to be put under control by the rule of law contained in the U.S. Constitution. But, in case tyranny still found a way to take control of the American government, despite the U.S. Constitution, the American People needed to have a way to stop such tyranny. Therefore, in order to keep the nation free and liberty secure, the people were given the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, we are given the opportunity to be armed so that we may fight off the enemy, should that enemy be of foreign origination, or domestic.
If a tyrannical government rises, and our liberties are so eroded that the very foundations of this nation are at risk, then yes, I am willing to take arms against my government. That is not an anti-government stance. My willingness to fight against tyranny should it rise to a level of an authoritarian government is not an anti-government stance, but a pro-Constitution stance.
That is the difference between a patriot, and a nationalist.
10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Pentagon Shooter Leads Liberals To Blame: "Those anti-government rightwing wing-nuts" - Political Pistachio
Regulate - 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary