(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The Harry Reid campaign has released a campaign ad attacking Sharon Angle as "crazy" for warning that "If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking towards those Second Amendment remedies."
The spokesman is Bill Ames, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada and a self-described "member of the NRA and a Republican." Says Ames:
What she's actually talking about is armed resistance....That kind of talk is dangerous and way too extreme.
Let's watch the ad:
The first disconnect is his claim that Angle "keeps saying" this. It's a one-time sound bite they selectively culled from the Lars Larson show, and Ames presents no evidence that this has been a recurring, or even a repeated theme in the seven months since this was recorded.
That said, what is it she's really reporting on and cautioning about--as opposed to advocating or inciting, which this ad implies? If the government ignores the Constitution and the rights it is mandated to protect, the Second Amendment may ultimately enable the people to restore its protections against tyranny...?
Let's see what the Founding fathers had to say about that:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.
Talk about "over the line." "dangerous" and "way too extreme"!
Ames claims "Carrying a gun...[is] a Constitutional right that I believe in." But what exactly was the founding intent behind this right?
No less a Constitutional scholar than Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, describes what the anti-gunners call the "insurrectionist theory" of the Second Amendment as "the Standard Model," citing Thomas Jefferson's description of the Tennessee Constitution as "the least imperfect and most republican of the state constitutions," because it "contains an explicit recognition of the right--and in fact the duty--of citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government. Article I, Section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution provides:
That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
Reynolds continues:
Article I, Section 2 provides:
"That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
One could hardly ask for a more explicit endorsement of an "insurrectionist theory" than this. Nor is Tennessee the only state whose constitution dates from the period of the Framing and contains such a provision. And, of course, the Declaration of Independence states the same theory. So the argument that a constitutional right of revolt was unthinkable or absurd to the Framers contradicts some rather obvious historical evidence to the contrary. That should come as no surprise, really, when we remember that the Framers were, after all, revolutionaries themselves.
Exactly what Mr. Ames thinks this "Constitutional right" he "believe[s] in" was intended to protect might be a fair line of inquiry. And it also seems fair to ask another question at this point:
Does Harry Reid reject the Standard Model of the Second Amendment?
Yes or no?
It's tough to say, because he ignored the Gun Rights Questionnaire that Sharron Angle freely (and unequivocally) answered. But it's a question gun owners ought to insist on him answering.
And, assuming they don't agree with the message Harry Reid approved, it's a question NRA ought to insist on him answering, as long as they're still considering him to be eligible for their endorsement. Getting that answer before giving their backing is something we gun owners ought to insist they ascertain.
After all, ultimately, it isn't about jack rabbit hunting.
And it certainly isn't about publicly-funded shooting parks.
To insist otherwise would be...what's the word the Reid attack ad used?
Crazy.
------------
Restore the Constitution
Regular readers will recall I attended the initial armed rally across the Potomac from Washington D.C.--the one where none other than the Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke described the attendees as "polite. As you can see, he was greeted with open arms.
Organizers are going for some repeats this weekend in North Carolina and New Mexico.
Western Rifle Shooters Association has the details.
------------
Picnic in the Park
From Bennett Prescott, CCDL Public Relations Coordinator:
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League will be holding their second annual family picnic this Saturday, August 14th from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Booth Memorial Park, 5800 Main Street, Stratford CT. This event is open to CCDL Members and the public free of charge. Everyone is encouraged to attend and to celebrate our right to keep and bear arms. Get to know us and learn more about what CCDL does to protect your rights as a Connecticut gun owner!
I know what you're thinking. The answer is "Yes":
Any lawful forms of weapon carry are allowed and encouraged.
More from Gun Rights Examiners:
Atlanta Ed Stone
Austin Howard Nemerov
Boston Ron Bokleman
Charlotte Paul Valone
Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard
Chicago Don Gwinn
Denver Dan Bidstrup
Des Moines Sean McClanahan
Detroit Rob Reed
Fort Smith Steve D. Jones
Knoxville Liston Matthews
Los Angeles John Longenecker
Minneapolis John Pierce
National David Codrea
Seattle Dave Workman
St. Louis Kurt Hofmann
Tucson Chris Woodard
Comments
Harry Reid is running scared because for the first time in his political career the voters are rejecting him and he does not want to be voted out of office. Nevada needs to stand up with Arizona and declare itself a free and independent state again. The right of choosing their own government is up to the people and not to the political parties or the federal government. The people do not need permission to reject a government as long as the majority approve by using the ballot box first and failing then the use of force.
Does the will of a "majority"
rightfully impose slavery on the minority?
Only in a democracy, that is why the founders got us a constitutional republic.
And, if those at the ballot box are happy to accept their chains, what
then for those of us who do not?
No big deal: the cop in the ad is just another NRA Quisling. The ad itself is more indicative of Reid's desperation than anything Sharron Angle believes.
Americans are peaceful and freedom loving. "Don't tread on me."
People like Reid are so jaded that there's no hope. Look how little access people in the state have to him, a high roller living a life of complete luxury. Reid is the one who's extreme, as in extremely out of touch with everyone and everything in NV. NV is just a place to him and no one gets in his space. It's like old Rome with temples to living people like him. Where's his toga? Only wears that with the girls in his luxury penthouse? He'll die like Rocky did, with a smurk on his face and his underware on backwards in the company of either two girls or two boys, a "Roman" tragedy, but a sad one for everyone in NV.
All Sharon Angle did was to put in verbal form what any patriotic American is actually thinking.
Part I
It is historically obvious that most of the founding fathers and the folks who ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution supported the right to keep and bear arms. For what purpose(s)?
Armed insurrection against the government established by the Constitution? Unlikely - The framers and those who ratified that Constitution believed it to be as close to perfection as they could make it. Otherwise, why did they choose to define the act of treason in Article III section 3and not create an exception in the Bill of Rights?
To provide that all citizens be able to provide their own arms in the event the calling out of the militia became necessary? Without a doubt - The National Guard did not exist and the idea of standing armies was repugnant to the early Americans. The first line of defense for the new nation was the militia.
For personal protection? Again, without a doubt – There were no organized police departments.
I give up
[W3]
You are missing something very important. If those who took the oath to uphold the Constitution actually upheld it . You would be right. The problem is. Most of them don't. It has been slowly dismantled by the progressives and others who dislike the Constitution because it limits the powers of the Federal Gov't. The progressives keep coming out ahead on every single compromise. It is time they compromise back to the Constitution. It is the lack of following the Constitution that will result in an armed insurrection that personally I believe is long over do.
If you think Police are supposed to protect you, think again, read all the court decisions relative to this and get aware.. They are not held responsible to protect you, they get to the scene, take notes, pictures and then call the Fire Dept to wash the blood into the sewer.. YOU and yours are responsible for your own protection from dangers.. Read History, Think, look around you and get your head up... cheers to all who have a brain,,, DC
EXACTLY! At most they are a deterrent. I don't know of too many criminals that will give their victim time to call the police. As well as allowing the police to show up to stop the crime. The real deterrent is being able to defend yourself. Perhaps with a double barrel shotgun.
American law enforcement is based on what is commonly called Old English Law, In England the various sheriffs were lackeys for the king or queen. Their sole duty was to collect taxes and do the bidding of the king or queen.
As far as armed insurrection, read the first shaded area above, It is a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence. Personal writings of the framers of the Constitution indicate that they intended this phraseology to apply to any government, even the one they were instituting, should it become corrupt or unjust
From MamaLiberty over at War on Guns:
"Here's an idea...If nobody wants a 'civil disturbance,' why in heck don't they quit disturbing us?"
David I don’t see anything wrong with what Sharron said, but I do see a lot wrong with the policies of Harry Reid.
Harry Reid has bankrupted our country and undermined our liberty and he wants the good people of NV to reward him with 6 mores years in the US Senate!
This is appalling!!!
The fact that the NRA is still playing games in this election is also appalling.
David our nation is in trouble in ways people can’t understand. In Illinois the State has said it will not honor pension obligations of retires if the fund is unable to meet its obligations
That’s why the Governor wants a semi-auto ban on the November Ballot so they can disarm the people before the pension crash
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
[Excerpt as follows]
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
But its ok for he government to use armed resistance against the people who are their bosses and it isnt extreme?
As for the 'only one' in the video, if he doesnt enforce unconstitutional laws, he has nothing to fear.
Yes, I bet Harry Reid "approves this message." It's either that, or switch to Saran-wrap underwear.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!