NY Times: If You Think The 2nd Amendment Is There To Protect You From Government, You’re Un-American

Here’s Stanley Fish, writing an op-ed for the far left NY Times

Is the N.R.A. Un-American?

The more militant members of the N.R.A. and most of its leaders may be un-American.

By “militant” I don’t mean those who wish to protect recreational shooting and hunting; nor do I mean those who, like Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that there is a constitutional right to defend one’s home and family with firearms. These are respectable positions (although I am deeply unpersuaded by the second). I mean those who read the Second Amendment as proclaiming the right of citizens to resist the tyranny of their own government, that is, of the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place.

The reason this view may be un-American is that it sets itself against one of the cornerstones of democracy — the orderly transfer of power. A transfer of power is orderly when it is effected by procedural rules that are indifferent to the partisan, ideological affiliations of either the party exiting power or the party taking power. A transfer is disorderly when it is effected by rebellion, invasion, military coup or any other use of force.

Most who believe in the 2nd Amendment and understand its roots are simply un-American, per the Far Left. The entire purpose of the 2nd was to make sure citizens were able to have firearms in order to deal with all threats, both foreign and domestic. To resist tyranny, both foreign and domestic. The Framers were very much worried about the power of government, both foreign and domestic, hence they made sure citizens would be able to have firearms, making this the 2nd amendment included in the Bill of Rights. Liberals do not like this, because a disarmed citizenry is a docile citizenry.

So, they deem that the NRA and its supporters, and those who aren’t but still are 2nd Amendment supporters, are now un-American. Certainly we are, in terms of what this great country has become. Our rights are eroded daily. Our citizens are left to die in far off lands while the president heads off to a campaign event. The IRS abuses its power. The DOJ seizes journalist phone records. They spy on citizens electronic communications. HHS abuses religious organizations. The hit parade goes on and on. Ask for redress of grievance? Brother, good luck with that. Government thinks you work for them, not the other way around.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “NY Times: If You Think The 2nd Amendment Is There To Protect You From Government, You’re Un-American”

  1. john says:

    sooo Teach your saying that the 2nd is there so that if you don’t like the way democracy works you can be revolutionary? like Bill Ayers ? Don’t like the way the majority wants things take up arms?

  2. You should go read the Federalist papers and history of the Revolution and the founding of our country before you ask a stupid question like that, John.

  3. david7134 says:

    I am listening to a series of lecture on rights. I am surprised to find that we don’t have any. The 4th amendment in particular does not exist. Much of this is secondary to the war on drugs. Once we secure the 2nd amendment, we need to make an effort on reversing the other decisions that have robed us.

    john,
    Ayers used bombs, just like the Boston Bombers. I know as his group tried to blow me up. They targeted people, not buildings. He should still be in jail. So, yes, we need to use our guns to get our government back.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    sooo Teach your saying that the 2nd is there so that if you don’t like the way democracy works you can be revolutionary?

    Teach is right. This is one stupid question.

    First john, we don’t live in a democracy. We have a republic form of government.

    Secondly, “tyranny” is not disagreeing with the masses, “tyranny” is the oppression of the government in spite of and in violation of the laws.

    Don’t like the way the majority wants things take up arms?

    If the majority wants to take away peoples rights, property and do outside of the rule of law, yes. A person agrees to abide by the laws of the land including its foundational documents. In the US, those foundational documents include the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    When the government – even if back by a majority of people – says those documents mean nothing, then the people have a fight to take up arms.

    As Teach said, you should really reads more before you ask stupid questions. But here is one for you to chew on….. the country was not founded because a majority of people wanted to break away from England. The country was founded by a minority of those who recognized that the practices of the English government were against their stated laws and principles, and against the rights of mankind.

    That means that the minority you seem to hate – those who wish to protect their rights – are the ones that founded this great country and allow you have the freedoms you now enjoy.

  5. mojo says:

    “…the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place.”

    Well, there’s yer problem, right there! The Government didn’t “issue” the Constitution: quite the opposite. The Constitution established the Government. It precedes, not follows.

  6. Them's_Fightin'_Gumballs says:

    Mojo and GC. Correct. Mojo, especially pertinent in this current time frame where Socialists try to claim that our Government is the originator of our rights. That it is the gov’t that chooses how we can live, eat, work, pray, and survive.

    If nothing comes of these latest scandals, including the massive military buildup of our non-military, the expulsion of Posse Comitatus, then you will soon begin to see declarations of “TYRANNY!”

Bad Behavior has blocked 6877 access attempts in the last 7 days.