Saturday, January 16, 2016

The answer is not in Constitutionally repugnant 'laws', but in education...

   The doctrine contended above is by no means a new one. No, for it was first suggested by Thomas Jefferson to U.S. Representative, Diplomat and First U.S. Marshal of New York William S. Smith about 229 years ago. To Wit:
   "Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts?* And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

* - Shay's Rebellion
    How is it that our 'education' system isn't teaching our children, first of all; the truth about their rights. And secondly, about the proper way of exercising those rights? Such as in how it is their right to keep and bear arms. However, it isn't proper to brandish those arms in a threatening manner. Nor is it right to use them in the commission of a crime. Rather, it is not only their right, but their duty to use them in order to prevent or even stop crimes. Including crimes committed by the government itself. [Oh, but that would drain the legal and penal system of revenue, now wouldn't it?]

   Can any of the cowardly and ignorant traitors that are attempting to betray us explain why they aren't seeking the proper way of reducing violence with firearms? Or, has your cowardice and ignorance blinded you so much, that the light of reason is unable to penetrate your thick skulls? Why can't you just live in reality, instead of trying to force your nightmare upon the rest of us? Or, do you actually enjoy being known as "sycophants votaries of tyranny and usurpation"?

No comments: