Subscriber login

Letters to the Editor
What you need to know for 01/19/2018

Abusing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment

Abusing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment

*Abusing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment

Abusing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment

In the event that an overreaching executive branch seeks to impose its will through an unopposed executive order. Citizens beware.

Logic and reason should dictate that there will be the same vehement outrage at a President Obama as there was for President Bush when he engaged in similar acts. Yet, let the facts be submitted to a candid world.

The scornful and dismissive understanding of the Second Amendment is appalling and misinformed. The call for the prohibition of military-style “assault rifles” ignores the reality of the 20th century and the madmen who started down the same path.

[President] James Madison warned, “There are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.” The calls for “forced buy back” or “confiscation” should make any independent, moderate and rational clear-thinking individual cringe.

The Second Amendment was never meant to apply to only those weapons that pose no threat to government. The founders believed that “the right to bear arms” was as imperative for a free society, as was the freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion and due process. So necessary that they specifically singled it out for the Bill of Rights.

The belief was that America would always preserve the military capacity of its citizenry to guard against any violent and oppressive act of government. The Bill of Rights codified an individual’s inalienable right to alter, dissolve or abolish the government when it became destructive to the means of freedom.

Men of the founding generation clearly recognized that the greatest threat to liberty is a standing army or militarized police force (domestic or foreign) that does not fear a disarmed populace. As current events prove, military might does not always dictate victory, as is now being witnessed with Syrian rebels battling against a much larger, more heavily armed and oppressive regime.

In our own country less than a generation ago, we interned a minority demographic on the basis of irrational fear and paranoia perpetrated by our government to control and manipulate the population. The common excuse for such actions is always the “greater good,” the mistake of trading liberty for security. That negligent and unforgivable act should never be allowed to occur again. The ultimate deterrent against political enslavement and a tyrannical government has always been a lawful armed society.

The calls for prohibition are fueled with misinformed and ideologically extreme emotions of paranoia, anger and oppression. George Mason, who helped author the Bill of Rights, believed: “The best and most effectual means to enslave a people is to disarm them.” History should not be allowed to repeat itself.

John Sokolewicz


View Comments
Hide Comments
0 premium 1 premium 2 premium 3 premium 4 premium 5 premium article articles remaining SUBSCRIBE TODAY

You have reached your monthly premium content limit.

Continue to enjoy Daily Gazette premium content by becoming a subscriber.
Already a subscriber? Log In