Very well done!
http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...13/1021&slId=1Dear Editor,Control guns
A recent letter writer argued, “The reason for it (the Second Amendment) is ... to protect ourselves from our own government in the event it becomes oppressive, violates its own Constitution, or tries to usurp our liberty.
“It is there to enable us to oust those in Washington. And, as any rational patriot who believes in our Constitution would agree, it is rapidly approaching the time when we might need to do just that.”
Armed takeover of the federal government? I don’t think that’s what the Second Amendment intended. While the ambiguousness of the Second Amendment ensures a debate as to its meaning, the right to armed rebellion against the government is not enshrined within.
Rarely have I seen a viewpoint expressed so clearly supporting the careful control of access to deadly weapons.
John Holenko ('Control guns' by John Holenko, Letters 19 April
2012) correctly points out that the right to rebellion is not enshrined
within the Bill of Rights' Second Amendment, as he picks and chooses
through our founding documents for support for his progressive agenda.
The right to rebellion is much more fundamental, and is enshrined within
a document fundamental even to the Constitution, that is the Declaration
of Independence. Indeed, the shrine to rebellion is in the very first
sentence of the Declaration of Independence,
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The declaration of the contemporary causes of separation are the topic
of nearly every headline news article.
Armed takeover of the national government is certainly not the intent of
the Second Amendment's unambiguous language, but protection of the
uninfringed capability to protect ourselves from a tyrant elite is
clearly the objective.
Mr. Holenko mistakes the conspiracy of ignorance for common sense. Good
people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.
(Spinnaker Beach houses,
Seabrook Island, SC)
Very well done!
In learning something new this morning, I found this quote & thought of our current situation in the USA:
The White Rose Society was a German resistance group in 1942-43....why do you allow these men who are in power to rob you step by step, openly and in secret, of one domain of your rights after another, until one day nothing, nothing at all will be left but a mechanised state system presided over by criminals and drunks? Is your spirit already so crushed by abuse that you forget it is your right - or rather, your moral duty - to eliminate this system?
(From Leaflet 3 of the White Rose Society)
They agitated against Hitler, authoring, printing, & distributing leaflets across Germany.
Their last leaflet made it to England, where it was reproduced by the millions & dropped from planes for a much wider German distribution by the Allies.
Most of the members of the Society were "tried" & murdered by the Nazis.
One was canonized.
There are still memorials to them across Germany, & even in TX.
When I saw the movie, I noticed a book in the background of a scene with the author 'Bonhoeffer' and so discovered Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a founder of the Confessing Church, with which Martin Niemöller was involved. Niemöller was, of course, the author of "And then they came for me" quoted in a 1955 book by Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free.
The Confessing Church's activism during the NAZI regime has been influential in my Lutheranism.