Skip to comments.Fighting 'government tyranny' a growing concern for gun rights advocates
Posted on 01/24/2013 9:12:06 AM PST by marktwain
MONTGOMERY, AL (RNN) - Gun control opponents at an Alabama rally said their struggle is less about the constitutional right to self-defense than having the ability to join an armed revolt against the United States government. Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees that right is at the center of the divisive national debate.
On Jan. 19, thousands rallied in various state capitals for "Gun Appreciation Day" to speak out against gun control. Political Media, Inc, which coordinated the events, is a Republican-affiliated public relations group based in Washington, D.C. The rallies featured speakers ridiculing gun control as supporters waved American flags and signs emblazoned with anti-government slogans.
"I'm here because the Second Amendment is critical in keeping our country free and safe. And not just from criminals. But also from our own government," said Duane Hilton at the Montgomery, AL, event. "We need to protect ourselves. We need to know the Second Amendment gives me the power to protect myself against tyranny."
Others at the rally saw President Barack Obama's proposed gun restrictions as a slippery slope that will lead to an eventual across-the-board gun ban that would leave people powerless if a tyrannical regime took over the country.
"If you're trying to restrict [guns], then you ban them. And if you ban them, people don't have anything to protect themselves," said Kristen Engle. "So if we're in a situation similar to the Holocaust, we will have no option to fight back."
Rally attendees' beliefs that they might one day need to take up arms against their own government were part of an overall frustration with government policies.
Hilton was among many who said that immigration policy is an example of a misguided government.
"They give rights to illegal aliens that even Americans don't have.
(Excerpt) Read more at wlox.com ...
Feinswine’s gun ban press conference is on C-SPAN 3 if anyone is interested. Its as expected. Lots of talk about the hail of bullets and slaughtered children.
This proves that southerners aren’t stupid.
I honestly feel that a revolt is the goal of the Obamadork collection of felons/tax dodgers.
And they’re doing a d*mned fine job of reaching it.
When it comes, a lot will depend on whether or not the military defends the constitution or the dork.
Finestein admitted to carrying concealed back in 2006.
I wonder if she will turn her own pistol in ?
They’re throwing all the graphic language into this one.
Philly Police Commissioner “THE STREETS ARE HEMORRHAGING!!!”
The only reason there is any debate is the liberals have made sure nobody sent through government indoctrination centers read the words of Thomas Jefferson.
While a last resort, it was a resort retained (not given by government) to assure if they ever faced what we are facing today with the constitution in shreds that we would have the ability to restore it by force.
You have to hand it to the lying communists, they did succeed in implementing the communist manifesto and most brain dead citizens think the 2nd Amendment is about hunting, target shooting or home protection from obama’s and holder’s people.
America is fast slipping into a dictatorship controlled by the communists Democrats. When will America wake up. Civil War will happen and not too far in the distance and it will be centered in Washington DC. Damn, I hate to see this. Why won’t the communists wake up and see what they have done to America.
And, that's the problem right there. It should be EVERY AMERICANS concern.
cripplecreek ~ :” Philly Police Commissioner THE STREETS ARE HEMORRHAGING!!!”
“The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14.
The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5.
The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started. “~ by Larry Correia
“The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government.” by Larry Correia
First it is Gobbernment ‘over-reach ‘
Then it is infringeing on the Constitution, in part
Then there is total ignoring the Constitution ... that’s called Progressiveism !!
“We need to know the Second Amendment gives me the power to protect myself against tyranny.”
Reminds of a quote from Ice-T (yes, THAT Ice-T, the rapper and star on Law & Order): it went something like, “ the second amendment is the last line of defense against tyranny.” PS - he’s a HUGE 2A supporter.
One of the headline grabbing clowns claimed the police wouldn’t have been able to stop the Sandy Hook shooting because they weren’t equipped to face a “hail of bullets” like that.
The simple fact is, one armed person could have ended the shooting quickly.
cripplecreek ~:” The simple fact is, one armed person could have ended the shooting quickly.”
When confronted by police , he commited suicide (as do most mass killers )
The Declaration of Independence gives the citizens the right to overthrow the government.
Unknown to most is that the Declaration of Independence was codified as the first statute enacted by the first Congess. It is the law of the land.
This article says people at the rally want the right to have guns in case they “want to join an armed revolt”. That is a lie. I’ve not seen or heard anyone saying they support an armed revolt. I didn’t even read it in this articla.
Has anyone noticed that the Oppressives dont really have a good answer to the question as to the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms?
The best they can manage is a deflection off into something about armed citizens against the military.
Has anyone ever gotten a straight answer to this question:
The Constitution and the 2nd amendment is a constraint on the Feral government, if this supposedly isnt the case and it fails to mention hunting or other recreational activities, what is its true purpose?
Feel free to print your own on removable label stock.
It even works on liberals. Just blandly tell them "OF COURSE I trust Obama, but what happens when Jeb Bush gets elected, hmmm?"
I know they have a lot of members with very specific interest who are a good source of essential funds, who they don't want annoy. I think they can inform people without neglecting other interest, or pushing it too aggressively.
This is like saying that just because your house has ever had a fire that you should save money by cancelling your fire insurance, and passing a law that no future owner of the house could have fire insurance either.
Recently Geraldo, on his syndicated radio program asks: How could you not trust your own government?
But I am sure that Geraldo doesn’t disagree with cities and states when they allow medical pot or when mayors declare their city to be a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants. Anyone who supports these self-declared exemptions is saying they don’t trust the federal government on that issue.
But, putting aside episodes like the Trail of Tears, and Waco, I generally do trust my government. This is not the issue. The issue is that in order to not have a government that can run amok like Lenin’s government ran amok or Pol Pot’s or Fidel’s, we must always have the means to prevent it from happening. All these government started by assuring their citizens they had nothing but the best of intentions at heart.
Even more to the point, nobody can predict how some future government may run amok so that my children or their children might not be able to answer Geraldo’s question the way I would today. I have a right that once lost will be lost forever. I will not be the one who gives up that right, to preclude those who follow me from being able to resist some future American Lenin or American Castro.
We have plenty of Lenin and Castro wannabes. We have already seen pictures of Christmas tree ornaments in the White House with Mao’s picture on them. We have seen signs at rallies for major political figures with slogans and graphics that suggest violence and bloodshed. We have had major media figures show approval to political violence and suppression of political speech they oppose.
Just a few days ago, a Democrat state legislator brandished an AK-syle rifle in the chamber to advance a political point.
We had National Guardsmen taking firearms at gunpoint from citizens during Katrina. We have overt militarization of federal law enforcement and security functions like the TSA and its roving VIPR teams.
We know that for some politicians and their supporters that the line between civility and violence is not too far apart. There may come a day by accident or by some totally unexpected crisis that government may far exceed its enumerated powers and refuse to recognize one or all of them.
Therefore I cannot allow any inalienable right especially those enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be infringed lest my children cannot have access to them should they really need them.
The Second Amendment is to guarantee the security of a free state. There is no crime in rising up to restore/retain the Constitution. The revolt is against a usurper regime, not the Constitutional U.S. Government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.