It's Not Just About The Guns
Dec 9, 2009 15:17:06 GMT -5
Post by barelyillegal on Dec 9, 2009 15:17:06 GMT -5
Either serious in a funny way or funny in a serious way, this is one of the most astute observations I've read in a while:
Walter Mitty's Second Amendment
EXCERPTS:
"The agencies were not established by the government's constitution, and their existence violated that instrument's principle of separation of powers. Yet the people retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government, some day, ceased to be a "government of the people."
.
.
"Even home owners often required permission to simply build an addition to their homes, or to erect a tool shed on their so-called private property. And so it seemed that "private property" became, not a system protecting individual liberty, but a system which, while providing the illusion of ownership, actually just allocated and assigned government-mandated burdens and responsibilities.
Still, this mightily productive people believed themselves to live in the most capitalistic society on earth, a society dedicated to the protection of private property. And so they retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government ever sought to deprive them of their property without just compensation."
.
.
"The people could have their guns. What did the rulers care? They already possessed the complete obedience that they required.
In fact, in their more Machiavellian moments, the rulers could be heard to admit that permitting the people the right to keep and bear arms was a marvelous tool of social control, for it provided the people with the illusion of freedom."
Maybe some of you have seen this before, but I searched and could not find it on the forum. It's often said that the Second Amendment protects all of the rest, but seldom does the articulation of that statement go much further into specifics. This article really highlights how a gun owner who, like myself, believes in that statement, can't be just a "single issue" advocate.
Walter Mitty's Second Amendment
EXCERPTS:
"The agencies were not established by the government's constitution, and their existence violated that instrument's principle of separation of powers. Yet the people retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government, some day, ceased to be a "government of the people."
.
.
"Even home owners often required permission to simply build an addition to their homes, or to erect a tool shed on their so-called private property. And so it seemed that "private property" became, not a system protecting individual liberty, but a system which, while providing the illusion of ownership, actually just allocated and assigned government-mandated burdens and responsibilities.
Still, this mightily productive people believed themselves to live in the most capitalistic society on earth, a society dedicated to the protection of private property. And so they retained the right to keep and bear arms. Just in case their government ever sought to deprive them of their property without just compensation."
.
.
"The people could have their guns. What did the rulers care? They already possessed the complete obedience that they required.
In fact, in their more Machiavellian moments, the rulers could be heard to admit that permitting the people the right to keep and bear arms was a marvelous tool of social control, for it provided the people with the illusion of freedom."
Maybe some of you have seen this before, but I searched and could not find it on the forum. It's often said that the Second Amendment protects all of the rest, but seldom does the articulation of that statement go much further into specifics. This article really highlights how a gun owner who, like myself, believes in that statement, can't be just a "single issue" advocate.