NOW:53211:USA01012
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA01012
50°
H 52° L 37°
Cloudy | 14MPH

REVOLUTION, BEST WITHOUT ARMS.

The state militia.

 


 

The Egyptians expelled their tyrant without the use of arms while facing a well regulated militia which could have fired on them and in so doing would have eliminated them as an opposition to the government.


 

Fortunately the well regulated Egyptian militia (actually, the army} did not accidentally nor purposely fire on the people. Let us see what happens in Iran.


 

The governor of Wisconsin has indicated he is prepared to call up the militia for an event that may not occur. He has yet to take the first step toward eliminating collective bargaining among public employees.


 

The question arises, does the second amendment provide for the people to take up arms against the National Guard? Or is the National Guard being called to prevent the people from bearing arms?


 

If the people can bear arms and the state National Guard is for the security of the State, what is the role of people in bearing arms. Who do they bear arms against? And what about the National Guard?  Isn't there a conflict here.


 

If it is implied that the people can bear arms against government, then can the state rightfully confront its own people? This is a question that should have never come up in our democracy.


 

But the governor has brought it before us. Is it necessary even as a threat to say that he will call up the militia? And do the people then have the right to bear arms against the state and its militia?

 

 

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools