Damned straight. If you allow your government to abolish the 2nd amendment, what is left to stop them from abolishing the others?
Via Forbes:
At its core, gun-control is about submission, not crime.
The Missouri Information Analysis Center, a federal organ of Department of Homeland Security, included veterans, pro-life advocates, gun enthusiasts, Ron Paul supporters, and those who disdain the Fed or UN as potential terrorists. Essentially anyone who dreads untrammeled central authority was suspect. Could unfashionable political stands ultimately be deemed mental disorders or national threats in a bid to disarm dissent?
MIAC backtracked, but it’s likely there remain those with a similar outlook merely lying dormant until an opportunity arises. Piers Morgan’s insult-laden tirades against gun advocates conjure Josef Stalin’s infamous, “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?” Morgan and many liberals can tolerate no ideas, no life-saving solutions short of severe strictures on “assault weapons.”
No controls on guns, school security or other changes will deter a deranged murderer. Good Samaritans toting guns can minimize the carnage; reason enough for an armed populace, but the Second Amendment doesn’t pertain to self-defense, hunting or sport shooting. We have an obvious right – nay duty – to defend our families and neighbors, which are covered under the catchalls of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but the Second Amendment concerns resistance to federal hegemony.
Disarmament is the necessary precursor to tyranny. History’s most lethal mass murderers have been dictators presiding over unarmed subjects. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot never faced significant civilian resistance. Oh that the Jews had been better armed. The Warsaw uprising began with one small pistol.
Related Posts
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post