Clear
52°
Clear
Hi 81° | Lo 52°

Letter: Gun rights are for fighting tyranny

Gun lovers are like pro-abortion advocates. They won’t accept any restrictions on abortion because they don’t trust pro-lifers to stop. They know that pro-lifers think abortion is murder and that a true pro-lifer won’t stop until abortion is illegal everywhere.

Similarly, pro-gun folks don’t trust anti-gun politicians one inch. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has spoken of confiscating guns. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, while standing amid Uzi-toting bodyguards whom we pay for, has said guns are unnecessary and dangerous. President Obama, while surrounded by gun-toting Secret Service people whom we pay for, has said that guns don’t keep us safe and that we shouldn’t have them.

Gun rights have nothing to do with hunting. They have everything to do with fighting tyranny.

Why should a pro-gun person trust any politician?

BILL TAYLOR

New Hampton

Bill Taylor makes a good point and honestly, we are approaching tyrannical government when a minority forces its will on the majority through legislative tactics, the appointment of extremists by executive fiat and a blatant disregard for the Constitution. The administration and politicians are using shooting tragedies to push for a pathway to gun confiscation, let's be honest, that is what progressives really want. Progressive sites are all aglow about gun control and how we need to be in complete control and ban it yet I found this story about an abortion doctor on Philadelphia and Think Progress writes: ".....the assumption that most abortion doctors aren’t adhering to medical standards, and that the women who visit health clinics are in grave danger of receiving unsafe care — is off-base. In fact, as the right-wing pushes for tighter abortion clinic standards to make sure nothing like this ever happens again, that crusade could end up having exactly the opposite effect". The same could be said if you replace abortion doctors with guns and take the assumptions to the gun argument. Progressives want to ban guns because of the actions of a few mentally unstable people, why are they not asking to ban abortions because of the action of a few unstable abortionists. Would the same logic not apply? I think so.

Gun owners are fighting tyrants the same way I'm ridding Concord of polar bears. You don't see any? That's right. You're welcome.

When the statement " Life comes from life " is shown to be an untruth , Mr. Bill I , will agree with any statement from your mouth.

This is a very interesting back and forth we have between Gracchus and TCB. Gracchus asserts that 2A was written to protect from foreign invasion and domestic insurrection. TCB contends that is not the case and as proof offers up our founders fight against the British Govt. I guess the only way to solve this is to get in our time machine and ask the founders, "Do you think of yourselves as being "Americans" already and that therefore, you view the what British are doing as a "foreign invasion" or do you still consider yourselves British and therefore the British Govt. as "your" Govt. If their answer is the former - Gracchus wins! If it's the latter, TCB wins! Now where's that confounded time machine?!?!?!

Gracchus, Your test fails history. The 2nd amendment was specifically written as the previous gov't (British) tried to disarm the citizens to maintain their oppression. Look at the histories of gov'ts that disarmed their citizens and what happens next -tyranny. This is also why the military oath includes defending our country "from enemies foreign and domestic". lacking that you get claimed rulers who make ruling based not on Representative gov't but by personal decree. Wait -Wait -who does sound like?

As to ".. Wait -Wait -who does sound like?..." Billy O'Brien , right? This whole topic is as lame as they come. Fighting tyranny - right. Now protecting us from a zombie invasion, is more likely. Give the gun industry credit though, they have managed to con the gullible into paying exorbitant prices, in some cases 3X the prices they once were. What a great marketing tool fear is, to a fool.

Re. the phrase "maintain their oppression". It's a bit off-topic, but it should be noted at the time that this sense of "oppression" was not very widely shared in the colonies, which at the time of the Revolution had a standard of living the equal or better than that of Merrie Olde England. In fact, about a third of the colonists favored independence, about a third were Loyalists, and a third were too busy to care one way or the other.

"Gun rights have nothing to do with hunting." TRUE. "They have everything to do with fighting tyranny." Well, that depends on whose tyranny, doesn't it? If you believe that the Second Amendment was written to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, then you have it absolutely positively wrong; and your opinion flies in the face of 406 years of historical & legal precedent. If you think that citizens' right to bear arms is for the purpose of defending against foreign invasion or domestic insurrection, give yourself a gold star. Contrary to the myths spread by the gun groups, those are the facts.

Bluntly and well-stated. It's disheartening to read the posts that repeatedly claim otherwise--alleging--with little evidence--that the 2nd Amendment in essence justifies armed insurrection against a democratically elected government. To be frank, these people seem to know little of American history. Whether from the north or south, they've re-written history in their minds to suit what in essence are their neo-Confederacy views on states' rights, the imagined glories of the Old South and its "true" constitution and supposed 'limited' government, on Lincoln and the Civil War ("Northern war of aggression"). In fact, however, virtually everything that has made this nation great has come from those who believe in a strong central government--Washington and Hamilton, Lincoln, the 2 Roosevelts. This nation's industrial and financial framework was built in the 19th century by those who believed in a strong role for central government in building the nation's infrastructure. Indeed, it was Roosevelt's New Deal that brought the South into the 20th century with the TVA and rural electrification--programs that if proposed today would have the Paul Ryans and Rand Pauls of this nation in apoplexy--and the nation in gridlock.

Meanwhile in NH, not only cant you build a hydro dam, you cant run a wire from one thru a part of the state where there is...nothing.

Thru a part of the state that just loves their man made dam I may add.

Americans became a "people" when they signed and adopted the Declaration of Independence upon which the Constitution was built. It refers to first principles of government. It describes Americans as "one people" and describes people as "good people" referring to morality. The Constitution is the end product of the Declaration of Independence which tells us that when government becomes the antithesis of what it was established to be then, and I quote: "it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government". This right of a revolution or the threat thereof is the right that guarantees all of our rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights, NOT collective rights. Collective rights are a progressive, revisionist view which is nothing more than an effort to replace the principles of limited government. Collective rights were not part of the founders intent, in fact, Madison stated that the Bill of Rights referred "first to......individual rights". Your complaint is not about gridlock, it is concern that Obama and progressives can't steamroll the American people and allow a thin (imginary) majority to trample over the rights and beliefs of the other half.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.