“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”
The above quote comes from the Declaration of Independence. Now before anyone start screaming that I’m looking to overthrow the government and that we should have a second revolution, let me clear this up immediately. I’m not!
However, if our declaration says that it’s not only our right, but our DUTY, isn’t it also our Duty to fight back against the actions taken by government (even the best government on the planet) to protect ourselves from having to go to the extreme of a second revolution by standing up and raging against actions taken by the government that can be a step towards taking away freedoms?
I think of the recent “fiscal cliff” talk and subsequent signing. The White House and both Houses of Congress co-opted the term fiscal cliff from its original meaning. The original meaning had to do with the destructive path we’re on financially in this country over the coming months and years. Massive debt. Massive deficits. They changed it to mean the increased taxes, and huge reduction in spending that they didn’t want.
Another action is the recent gun control talk. They want to enact legislation that prevents you from being able to shoot more than ten rounds without reloading. Their reasoning that they state? The kid that shot up the school kids in Connecticut. But what nobody seems to want to talk about is that Adam Lanza, the shooter, didn’t use that weapon. He left that in the backseat of the car. Yet Senator Diane Feinstein (D) California, is pushing that the weapon not used be illegal because it was there in the neighborhood during the shooting. As though the weapon had some sort of mind control over the shooter from the back seat while the shooter was in the school taking aim with two guns that are not talked about being banned.
There is a reason that we have the freedom to have guns in this country. We were under tyranny at one time. Not us individually, but us as a country. I know, there is nobody left alive from that time. After all, it was 238 years ago that the first shot of the war was fired. But who says we can’t get a tyrannical government again?
I’ve heard the questions on some talk radio programs asking “why do you need a gun that shoots that many times in such a short time?” When some come back and say because we need to protect ourselves from the government, the talk show hosts (some) then turn it around and say it’s a racist mentality because sales set records in 2008 and again in 2012 both times after Obama was elected.
It’s not racism. It’s because it is well known that Obama is a Democrat and Democrats have for years had as part of their agenda, ‘gun control’. We didn’t have record sales of guns in 2000 and 2004 because George W. Bush was not in favor of gun control. Why would people be worried about a guy that believes as they do?
Why the gun with the ability to shoot many rounds without reloading? Because the government has those weapons. If people are buying guns to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, wouldn’t it make sense to have the same arms they have? If you’re really worried about the government attacking you it would be silly to arm yourselves with spitballs when the enemy has nuclear weapons.
We have corruption in government. We have a government that looks out for themselves first and the people they are elected to represent second. To think that can’t get worse is to be foolish.
We have Congresspeople that actually stand up and say that this is a great Congress because it’s the most diverse we’ve ever had. Diversity doesn’t make good government. This was stated before the 113th Congress was even sworn in. Another Senator says that the record number of women will cause the negotiations to be less confrontational. She said “less testosterone. Are you kidding me? If they are going to talk about less testosterone, would I be wrong in saying we had less PMS with more men in the Senate? Both thoughts are not just ridiculous, but outrageous.
I think a good House and Senate would be one that represents the people and is not self serving and probably one that passes less laws. The adults aren’t in Washington DC. They are in the fifty states. They are the people. Those people need to be able to fight back against the possibility of tyranny coming from the more and less diversified elected leadership.
You’re welcome to comment.