There seems to be an ongoing debate over whether or not it's proper to carry a fire arm to a congressional recess town hall meeting. It seems as though nearly everyone with a keyboard has weighed in on the issue, opinion requested or not. The
Baltimore Sun,
Right Side News,
NPR,
News-Journal, and unsurprisingly the New York Times'
Frank Rich have all come out against the issue.
The overriding rationale against bringing guns to town hall meetings is that it makes others uncomfortable, or it makes you look like a nut, or even that someone might go off the deep end and actually use it. I've also seen and read arguments
for carrying guns to town hall meetings, because 'we have 2nd Amendment rights.'
Maybe I'm all alone here, but I take a different outlook on this whole issue. There is no greater symbol of American resolve and steadfastness against tyranny than a gun. Whether libtards want to believe it or not, this is why we have a Second Amendment. So important is this symbol and right, that the only things the founders saw as more integral to our freedoms and liberties were freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble and freedom of the press. In my mind, considering what this administration, and these fools in congress are proposing be done in the American health care system, it's no wonder that the symbol which some Americans have chosen to display is the gun.
If the people who are against carrying guns to town hall meetings are skittish now, imagine how they would have been during the revolution or any part of US history up until the 1920's?! The fact is that carrying a gun has only become stigmatized within the last 60-70 years. There are certain
historical events that have had some influenced this, but by and large it's been a coordinated effort by the anti-gun lobby. This lobby either foolishly misunderstands American history, or selfishly wishes to rewrite it.
When faced with tyranny, US citizens have the right and obligation to stand up against it. Even if that means reminding congress and the president with such strong symbols! What should a power grab the likes of what is being proposed by 2 of the 3 branches of this federal government be called, if not tyranny? From
Dictionary.com:
"arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority."
I would encourage anyone who does not think that this move by our government is tyranny to point out where in the
United States Constitution the federal government, in any capacity, has the ability to seize or claim ownership (permanent or temporary) of private enterprise for any reason. While you're at it show me where health care is outlined as a frontier of the government, and spare me your radically out of context
General Welfare Clause argument.
The American Citizenry has no stronger symbol against outright tyranny, than that of a firearm. We can argue the definition of tyranny all day long, but in the end the definition lies with the citizenry. Obviously some of that citizenry has taken these overt moves on the part of the federal government as tyrannical. We bear arms, not because we can, but because against tyranny, we should! It wasn't that long ago that an
overreaching government sought to impose it's will upon the citizenry outside of what its own laws allowed. Bear arms, and send a message that it wont happen again.
