Those of us who fully understand our rights as recognized by the Second Amendment need to be willing to assert all of those rights. We should not allow politicians, Democrat or Republican (and I am staring directly at you, Chris Christie), nor their liberal allies, to narrowly define what rights we have.
The Second Amendment was meant to protect our “right to bear arms.” It was not meant to only protect our right to hunt wild game for either sport or sustenance. It was not meant only to allow us some meager measure of protection against a burglar who might invade our home.
A primary purpose of the Second Amendment, arguably the most important purpose, was to enable us to resist a government when that government had gone too far. To resist when that government no longer served the people; was no longer responsive to the people; and no longer respected the natural, God-given rights of the people. In short, the Second Amendment was as much about another revolution as it was about anything.
In short, the Second Amendment was as much about another revolution as it was about anything.
In Federalist No. 46, James Madison explained his vision of how our new republic would be balanced between state, local and federal governments. His discussion centered on how the people, through state and local governments, could resist overreaches by the federal government. Mr. Madison was addressing those who feared that this new federal government would become too strong, too pervasive, and eventually render state governments either ineffective or extinct.
Madison’s first argument was that the federal government is comprised of leaders chosen from the several states and are thus dependent on their votes to maintain that leadership position. Supporting legislation damaging to the states would be, it was reasoned, political suicide.
Unfortunately, the lust for power is strong in man and easily turns those of weaker wills to foul deeds. The examples of how the federal government, run by people like Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and many more before them are too numerous to outline here.
If this failed, Madison argued, then the federal overreach could be checked by a number of actions:
The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
This, in my humble opinion, is where we are now. The federal government has long overreached, in a great many areas. Those federal officials have found ways to buy their seats from term to term. Others have also been willing to lie about pertinent facts to gain or maintain their federal office.
Now, the federal government seeks to remove what would be the final refuge of the people; their means of refusing to comply with unconstitutional acts and to repel any use of force meant to compel their subservience. Many states have already begun to take some of the actions Mr. Madison suggested.
The next logical step in this chain, that the federal government would “accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition,” Mr. Madison considered “visionary supposition.” But, Mr. Madison argued, let the supposition be made, that:
the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Alas, much of this has come to pass. The blame falls squarely on our heads, the people of the several states. Some can rightly state that they recognized the danger and spoke out and voted accordingly, but here I speak of the entire nation, considered as one body of people. As a group, we have failed to halt the rising taxes; the laws intruding on every aspect of our lives; the executive orders ignoring the Constitution; the Supreme Court decisions that make a mockery of our laws and our founding.
We have, actively or passively, allowed to stand many of the acts Mr. Madison thought no free people would knowingly permit. Mr. Madison argued that, despite this tragic turn of events, there was still hope:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Mr. Madison is talking about ordinary citizens possessing sufficient firepower to repel a federal military, ladies and gentlemen. Make no mistake, the Founders foresaw this day and constructed a Republic meant to assist the people in preserving their freedoms. We would be held in low regard, indeed, by those who founded this country if we were to, under any circumstances, give up our ability to defend our freedoms. Mr. Madison’s view here should serve as ample inspiration:
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
I applaud the National Rifle Association for their recent television ad. We must be willing to fight those who would assault our basic rights with as much vigor as we can muster. To do any less would be an insult to the memory of all who worked, fought and died for the founding of this Republic.
We must not allow ourselves to be cowed by lies and distortions. We must challenge the flawed logic so often employed by those bent on taking away our fundamental rights. We need to do more of this:
Click here to view the embedded video.