Representative Joe Walsh (no--not that Joe Walsh), a Tea Party supported Republican representing the Illinois 8th congressional district, greatly upset the Brady Campaign late last month when he expounded on the purpose of the Second Amendment. From the Daily Herald:
“We are an embarrassment (in Illinois),” Walsh said. “We are the last state standing when it comes to concealed carry. There's no issue when it comes to freedom that matters like this, like the Second Amendment. The most important amendment in that Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. It protects every other amendment. It is the last line of defense between us and our government.”
According to the Brady Campaign, Rep. Walsh "has some explaining to do," for making such a "scary" statement:
"The people of Illinois deserve an explanation from Joe Walsh. Is he saying Illinois needs to legalize the carrying of hidden, loaded guns to allow residents to threaten violence against the government?," asked Brady Acting President Dennis Henigan.
Granted, the legal status of concealed carry has very little to do with the exercise of the Second Amendment for its intended purpose--the people's defense of their liberty. Not, as some would argue, because handguns are useless for resistance to a powerful, modern military--that is most assuredly not the case. No--the reason concealed carry laws have little to do with forceful resistance to government oppression is that if a would-be resistance movement allows itself to be bullied out of carrying concealed firearms because the law forbids the practice, it's clearly not much of a resistance movement.
Still, Rep. Walsh demonstrated, in fairly stirring fashion, that he "gets" the Second Amendment, which seemed to be his intent. Walsh was even so kind as to send the Brady Campaign's Acting President Dennis "What People?" Henigan a letter (pdf file), with the "explanation" Henigan had demanded (excerpt):
The freedoms we enjoy today were won by the gun and remain protected by the gun. Our founding fathers knew this fact because it was the gun that sent the British packing and paved the way for a government of the people for the people.
To ensure America remains ruled by the people, our early leaders inserted the right to keep and bear arms as our Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
This, however, did not satisfy Henigan:
He then says that ‘Americans and especially Illinoisans are subject to a new form of tyranny -- a big government bent on slowly dismantling our rights to own and carry a firearm.’
Again, Mr. Walsh, what are you saying here? That if Illinois does not allow the carrying of loaded, concealed guns in public, the Second Amendment justifies resistance by force of arms?
Likewise, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) added Rep. Walsh to their steadily growing "Insurrectionism Timeline."
The Second Amendment was written to guarantee the existence of the last bulwark against tyranny--an armed citizenry, and the abolishment of the CSGV's beloved government monopoly on force. That was well known when it was written in the 18th century (ask Tench Coxe), and was affirmed in 2008, when the Supreme Court made the Second Amendment's guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms a settled point of Constitutional law (emphasis added):
While, to be sure, the Second Amendment refers to the utility of an armed population in preventing government tyranny, the Framers did not consider the right limited to that purpose.
Rep. Walsh explained himself, Henigan. If you oppose the people's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms in defense of their families, lives, homes and liberty, perhaps it is you who have some explaining to do.
See also:
Comments