The Supreme Court is "reviewing" our Bill of Rights. The elite are discussing among themselves exactly how the 10 sacred amendments should be pared down to nine, or fewer. How should we respond? With words that clearly articulate our concern and our own personal views, of course. The Declaration of Independence outlines a long list of pleas and warnings that were issued, politely at first, before the colonists became rebels. Since the first "black codes" of 1865 that restricted black American firearm ownership, the government and an increasing number of America's citizens have begun to ignore the meaning of the second amendment.
Beginning with the Uniform Firearms Act of 1927 which restricted use of postal deliveries for concealed weapons, the press, academia, and government have chosen to downplay the very essence of the right to overthrow the government by force, should it usurp its bounds of law.
By the the time of the 1934 National Firearms Act, serious debate over the meaning and intent of the second amendment were over. The Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 were simply proof that all four "estates" (including the media) of government had abdicated their sacred obligation to openly recognize the intent of the second amendment.
The time may have already passed when victory in a revolution against a tyranical government could have been achieved. From centralized control over the media to the advanced weapons systems available to federal forces, any attempt to rise up and overthrow a government out of control would have become very costly as early as 1950 when rotary-wing aircraft became available. But the certainty of a government's tyranical point of no return would speak to a clear obligation on the part of patriots that to live free or die would be required.
Have we already crossed such a threshold? What would it mean, if we had? This commentary only seeks to answer one single question:
As the supreme court reviews the meaning of the second amendment, what should patriots do?
We should speak up regarding our convictions. And before I do, I will quote Patrick Henry as he spoke to the Constitutional Convention on the need for a "Bill of Rights." He addressed this very question directly, without holding back:
I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger. But, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the gentleman on the other side declares they are groundless. But, sir, suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds: should it fall on me, I am contented: conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation. I trust there are many who think my professions for the public good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides. There are many on the other side, who possibly may have been persuaded to the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. — Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788
And so, as our robed abdicates meet to trifle over the last vestiges of our ability to defend our freedoms with force, I will put it to you all in very clear terms: The meaning of the second amendment is clear, and is actually above debate. It's a cold, hard warning to tyrants: the people have a right and a sacred duty to use force to defend their liberty.
Your duty as a patriot is to renew the warnings that the press and the government have long since begun to ignore.
The second amendment is that critical.