"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." 2nd
Amendment, U.S. Constitution
I
have a recurring thought.
From
the point of view of the People who believe law enforcement is acting as the
judge, jury and executioner of innocent civilians with broken taillights, the
Second Amendment, as written and as interpreted by the Supreme Court, justifies
forming a militia to provide security and defend against the tyranny of the
government.
Who
decides when perceived tyranny rises to the level of justifying a well
regulated militia's response?
What
happened in Dallas last night represents the logical result of deciding to
exercise the rights inherent in the NRA's oft stated justification for broadly
interpreting the 2nd Amendment. The fact that the murderers acted illegally is
irrelevant since any armed insurrection against an established government will
remain illegal until the rebels prevail.
240
years ago, the Colonies rose up against their sovereign decrying "taxation
without representation". Lexington and Concord hosted the shots heard
around the world. 240 years from now, if there's anybody left, an armed revolt
in response to "execution without adjudication" may be viewed to have
started in Dallas.
This
is madness.
No comments:
Post a Comment