I’ve always been curious about the existence of Left Wing militias

I was over at Common Gunsense and saw that Sean was upset that MSNBC’s  Dylan Ratigan & Ted Rall were discussing “armed revolt”.

Wait a minute, isn’t that what the “pro-gun” crowd runs around saying?

There is a serious problem with the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment and that is who defines tyranny?  In this case, Rattigan and Rall are much closer to what the founders meant when they talked about “Tyranny” when one reads the primary sources.  For example, the “Federal Farmer” wrote a series of letters that were published in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal in late 1787 and early 1788. In his third letter, he lamented that under the new Constitution Congress “will have unlimited power to raise armies, and to engage officers and men for any number of years.” He then voiced his objection to standing armies:

I see so many men in American fond of a standing army, and especially among those who probably will have a large share in administering the federal system; it is very evident to me, that we shall have a large standing army as soon as the monies to support them can be possibly found. An army is not a very agreeable place of employment for the young gentlemen of many families.

He also stated in his thirteenth letter that “we all agree, that a large standing army has a strong tendency to depress and inslave the people.”  It was a universal sentiment that standing armies were inimical to liberty and that any military force needed to be under civilian control.  Don’t take my word for it, read the primary sources.

Has the pro-gun crowd noticed the significance of military spending in the federal budget?

Gun control flourishes when there is discussion of armed revolt by the common man to take power from the wealthy.  For example, National Guard armouries were built in the United States during the 19th Century to prevent actions such as Shays’ Rebellion, John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry, and The Black Panthers.  The British Firearms Act of 1920 was directly influenced by the Russian Revolution.  Not to mention the Constitution was a response to Shays’ Rebellion. I can imagine that a contemporary arming of the left will suddenly bring about calls for gun control.

Of course, the realisation that the Second Amendment does not invalidate Article III, Section iii of the constitution and that there are peaceful methods for effecting change may cause some “Second Amendment” supporters to come to their senses.  But I seriously doubt it.

Instead, they will become upset that the left can parrot the rubbish about soap boxes, ballot boxes, and ammo boxes.

%d bloggers like this: