The New York Daily "News" editorial staff has made no secret of its disdain for the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. After the Sandy Hook Elementary atrocity, though, that publication has lost all interest in maintaining even the thinnest pretense of journalistic objectivity, with every-gun related article (of which there have of course been a great many since Sandy Hook) featuring a "coupon-style" petition to ban so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" (gun-hater code language for 11-round or larger) magazines.
Now, NYDN's Bill Hammond sees fit to lecture gun rights advocates about the need to temper our "blind fury" about the latest infringements on that which shall not be infringed--specifically, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's draconian new gun ban (which Hammond describes as "Gov. Cuomo's landmark law"). Hammond particularly objects to the notion that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the people's right to the means of effective resistance against a tyrannical government:
The audience applauded heartily in tribute to the many veterans who were there. But it also loudly cheered the speaker who said, “We need guns to protect us from government.”
Maybe that thinking made sense at the time of the Founding Fathers — who had just succeeded in overthrowing the rule of a monarchy. Back then, ordinary citizens living on the frontier faced the very real threat of violent confrontations with Native Americans or British invaders.
But applying that logic to today — after more than two centuries of stable, democratic and mostly non-tyrannical government — is crazy talk.
Ah--see? There will never be a need to resist tyranny--our government has, after all, been "mostly non-tyrannical." No argument here, I suppose. The thing is, by that "logic," one could say that every mass shooter has been "mostly non-murderous." And yet laws against "regime change rifles" and standard capacity magazines deny them to not only these "mostly non-murderous" individuals, but to an entire populace that is "overwhelmingly non-murderous."
Besides, how comforted are the unlucky few supposed to be when caught in one of the exceptions to this happy, "mostly non-tyrannical" state of affairs? Should the spirits of the murdered Sioux at Wounded Knee just be thankful that the U.S. government does not usually massacre people in furtherance of its enforcement of the "gun control" agenda? How about the Japanese forced into concentration camps in 1942, for the "crime" of being Japanese--should they have been pleased that they were the only ethnic group so mistreated by our "mostly non-tyrannical" government?
How about the victims of the unpunished government murders at Ruby Ridge and Waco (more dead children than at Sandy Hook)--hey, you can't expect a government to be "always non-tyrannical," can you?
Our current government has granted itself the "right" to kill U.S. citizens without making a case for the necessity of doing so, with drones, or without--thank goodness we can count on them using that power "mostly non-tyrannically."
"Mostly non-tyrannical" doesn't cut it--doesn't come close, and aspiring "mostly non-tyrants" have no right to be surprised when they find themselves staring down the muzzles of the "mostly non-insurrectionist" people's guns.
I have no idea whether or not Bill Hammond has daughters of dating age, but if he does, I'm sure he'll have no objection to them dating "mostly non-rapist" boyfriends.
- Killing for 'gun control'?
- Living for 170,000,000
- Forget 'gun control'; CSGV represents 'genocide enablement lobby'
- CSGV backs government 'right' to political violence against citizens
- Believe 2nd Amendment is last bastion against tyranny? CSGV wants you dead
- Think government mass murder for 'gun control' can't happen here? It already has
- White Heat