I do not and never have advocated violence in politics, and my advocacy of citizen ownership of firearms is not in any way to be construed as a call for insurrection. An armed citizenry ought to be a natural bulwark for a democratic state; it is only your authoritar…
Well, that’s interesting to hear. As a non-gun owner, that’s not at all the message I receive.
Your piece is filled with statements that I read as saying the purpose of gun ownership includes the case where citizens must fight the government. Am I misunderstanding what these statements mean? Or, if not, then am I misunderstanding how bad things need to get before insurrection is warranted? If so, how bad is bad enough?
My life is great — I don’t need guns to fight the government, but I’m not sure that’s true for everyone.
Example statements from your piece:
simple farmers and townspeople taking up their weapons in defense of hearth, home, and freedom from oppressive old King George.
avoid the despotism of a tyrannical government
freedom was won and would be maintained only by force of arms; that an armed citizenry was not only the necessary and proper shield against foreign invasion but also the indispensable guardian against domestic tyranny.
“If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”
“The people need never fear the government because of the advantage of being armed.”