The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY - otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports


March 2, 2013

What exactly do you mean when you say tyranny?

Given how often the Second Amendment has been cited since the Dec. 14 massacre in Newtown, Conn., one can’t help but wish our founding fathers had elaborated a bit more on what they meant by: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This was especially true when National Rifle Association honcho Wayne LaPierre appeared at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing last month on gun violence. When Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., mentioned some of his pro-gun constituents lamenting that he doesn’t “get the Second Amendment” because “we need the firepower and the ability to protect ourselves from our government, from the police, if they knock on our doors,” LaPierre agreed wholeheartedly.

“I think without any doubt, if you look at why our founding fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George,” LaPierre responded, “and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.”

This wasn’t the first time I’d heard it claimed that the Second Amendment is a sort of backdoor “armed insurrection clause.” But saying something repeatedly only makes it seem true, so I’ve been curious about the historical basis for LaPierre’s belief that our founding fathers believed individuals have the right to any weaponry deemed necessary for warding off their particular definition of “tyranny.”

As any student of history knows, our biggest grievance with King George was “taxation without representation,” i.e., the colonists lacked the representatives in parliament to which they were entitled by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. But while our founding fathers resorted to violence to win their independence, they were forced to such exigencies because, unlike LaPierre, they didn’t live in a constitutional republic with separation of powers and a system of checks and balances.

Text Only
Big Chuck D'Imperio
Cary Brunswick

Chuck Pinkey
Guest Column

Lisa Miller

Mark Simonson

Rick Brockway

Sam Pollak
William Masters
  • Schreibman tops Chris Gibson on women's issues

    As the time to vote draws near, we need to remember how money can run politics more than we can. Raising funds is a prominent (if not the dominant) task of getting elected. Raising issues is also crucial, but those efforts are subject to distortion and fear-mongering.

    September 18, 2012

  • Republicans feelentitled to allthey can garner

    An entitlement is a legal benefit available from the government to individuals who are within a defined category of recipients, such as needing insurance for unemployment or health services.

    September 4, 2012

  • Romney focuses on self; Obama emphasizes unity

    Mitt Romney criticizes President Obama for saying a person's success is rooted in his community, and is not all his alone. Romney belittles this with his belief in individual initiative. He is better at the put-down than the push-up.

    August 21, 2012

  • Romney shows little regard for common man

    The Republicans in Congress have voted over and over, 33 times, redundantly and uselessly, to rescind what they call Obamacare.

    August 7, 2012

  • Scouts' gay ban creates problem where none exists

    The Boy Scouts of America's "emphatic reaffirmation" of its vow to exclude any and all homosexuals from its hallowed ranks is ill-considered and pathetic, especially in view of its having reviewed the matter for two years.

    July 24, 2012

Additional Content
Join the Debate
Additional Resources
CNHI News Service

Is Israel justified to conduct its military campaign against the Hamas in Gaza?

Undecided/no opinion
     View Results