Skip to comments.Behind Supreme Court case: Do gun rights protect against tyranny?
Posted on 05/09/2010 8:59:12 AM PDT by An Old Man
The Second Amendment stands as the Founding Fathers clear and unmistakable legal statement that an armed citizenry is the bulwark of liberty and provides the fundamental basis for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves, their families, their communities, and their nation against all aggressors, including, ultimately, a tyrannical government, wrote Daniel Schmutter in a friend of the court brief on behalf Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Mr. Schmutter said the Second Amendment is the very last line in the defense of American liberty.
To gun control specialists this argument is deeply troubling. They worry that any armed person with a beef against the government will look to the Second Amendment for encouragement to lock and load and then rain down armed force in the face of what he or she perceives as tyranny.
The Framers plainly did not envision ad hoc groups of armed individuals beyond state control (i.e. a citizens militia) as a constitutional check on tyranny, Mr. Schreiber wrote. They saw them as unruly mobs that must be quelled.
Although it was not discussed during oral argument in the Chicago case, Justice Antonin Scalia addressed the issue briefly in his majority decision in the high courts 2008 ruling striking down Washington, D.C.s handgun ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
When the people fear the government, we have tyranny.
When the government fears the people, we have Liberty!
Rebellion is brewing!!
Well yes, being tyrants, that WOULD be a concern to them.
Bump for after Church.
I didn’t notice individuals being disarmed when the Constitution was ratified. I wish people would stop guessing what the framers meant when all you have to do is look at history.
No, not anymore. No one is willing to use them to stop tyranny.
Simple the constitution was written before Karl Marx. If they had known they would have specifically outlawed all socialist concepts.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Mr Schreiber might want to read just a little about the American Revolution. What he describes as something the framers did not envision is a pretty good description of the the war the framers had just finished.
We have already seen how Obama created a snitch line in the White House, has an enemies list and has controlled the mainstream media in just his first year in office. With censorship and citizens with no means of armed uprising the US Constitution would be gone and a dictatorship imposed long before the 2012 elections.
If you lose the ability to keep/bear arms, you can't restore it by speaking about it. OTOH, if you lost free speech, the right to keep/bear arms would come in very handy to reset things right.
I read one time that Pennsylvania alone could put 500,000 armed men into the field overnight (these are hunters). Because of numbers like this for other states, the old Soviet Union was very leery about considering invading us.
I always viewed these men as people that would take a shot at the enemy before they got to me, so I could shoot at them.
But most important of all: When that knock comes at the door in the middle of the night, one can meet it with a 12 gauge pump in your hand. The knocker, if he has any sense, will be respectful.
>The Framers plainly did not envision ad hoc groups of armed individuals beyond state control (i.e. a citizens militia) as a constitutional check on tyranny, Mr. Schreiber wrote.
Funny; Thomas Jefferson said:
“Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!”
“When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Taken all together, how can anyone argue that Thomas Jefferson was NOT for armed men “terrorizing” [in the sense of causing some fear] the Government?
-Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29
Right on the mark!
This is why I've been saying that "taking back our country" by winning the Nov. '10 election is only a FIRST STEP.
If we win only the House, we have to start avoiding the Communist Senate and 0bagger's vetoes by defunding all what he did, outlawing Communism and "Socialism**,", investigating all the anti-American activities Especially Soros and his paid agents,) Czars and executive orders, etc.
We have a long way to go if we want to clean up close to 100 years of "Socialism," which is outright Communism that infiltrated and controlled some of the most important elements of our Republic, namely, education and the "free" media.
**I don't call what's going on "Socialism" because many people think that 0kaka is transforming us to Western Europe. I say don't flatter him; he's an outright hard-line Communist that is leading us to slaughter, literally, if his party isn't defeated in '10 and '12. Even if we were ALLOWED a "free" election, one of the two wouldn't do.
I think we need a new amendment to outlaw it. also we could repeal all the progressive amendments.
The Founding Fathers always make sense when they speak, and their words are a whip to beat fraudulent leaders with. They are gone, but ever with us and their authority trumps any aberration cooked up by Obama & Co.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.