The fundamental misunderstanding on the part of some Second Amendment absolutists, explained.
Editor, Purcellville Gazette:
Jim Schatz, Nick Donnangelo and their like-minded allies do their cause no favors when they characterize the right to own firearms as the right to armed insurrection against a duly elected government.
We are a nation governed by law, not vigilantism. When those we have elected to represent us displease the people, the people have the recourse of electing different representatives. When those elected representatives enact unconstitutional laws – which sometimes happens – the people have the recourse of the courts. The Union may be far from perfect, and the process of perfection may be slow and contentious. However, a “well regulated militia” was not intended to be one of the branches of government. When the framers included in our Bill of Rights the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it was for the purpose of defending the newly free nation from the threat of foreign occupation or illegitimate government, not to enable angry citizens to “protect themselves” from the authority of law enforcement or to resist public policy they dislike.
Describing our current elected government with epithets like “King Obama,” “treason,” “tyranny” and “armed bureaucrats” demonstrates two things about these gentlemen: They are unhappy with the results of the recent election; and they believe themselves to be outside our system of laws, more sovereign than citizen. Note Mr. Schatz’ full-throated praise of the right to privately own “fully-automatic machine guns and even grenade launchers, cannons and flamethrowers,” and his assertion of “an unalienable right to ‘keep and bear arms’ for protection from all things to include the increasingly more tyrannical government we see today in America” (emphasis ours). These words betray belief in an absolute, unlimited, sovereign right to possess the means to make war, including especially war on their own government. These words are a virtual threat to use deadly force against law enforcement officials if challenged. They are evidence of exactly the sort of dangerous and delusional thinking that precludes responsible gun ownership.
David and Jonathan Weintraub