Blog - Viewing Tag: terroristsSubscribe to RSS Feed
Domestic Terrorism & Tyranny in 2010 & 1835
Oct 02, 2010 @ 06:51:07
Increasingly we are hearing a chorus about the threat of "home-grown terrorists" such as Major Nidal Malik Hasan who is accused of the tragic murders at Fort Hood last year. When whole regions of Arizona are being abandoned by the federal government and there is precious little enforcement of immigration laws, how can we not expect terrorists to arise within the U.S.? But "terrorists" are not the only ones causing terror among us. In Austin last Monday a student fired several shots into the air in a plaza on the UT campus and then killed himself. What are we to do in light of such aggression right here in our own U.S.A? Civil government’s first responsibility is to protect life, but it is not the only entity with that responsibility. It is a God-given individual right and responsibility inherent in our human nature to defend ourselves, our families and our property (Neh. 4:13-14).
There is another domestic threat that more and more people are considering - home-grown tyrants who infringe upon the individual right of self-defense. For example, brave and self-less American soldiers, like Wayne Irelan, after risking their all for our liberty are being denied the right to protect themselves and their families with a firearm. Thankfully, legislation has been introduced to correct this travesty, but it has yet to be passed. How did such outrageous application of a "law" come about? How did we come to pre-dominantly rely upon the police or the army to protect us? I fear it is because we have abdicated many of our individual responsibilities to civil government. We have allowed authorities at all levels to disarm us or at least limit the carrying of some means of self-defense (of course all "for our good"). Times have changed. America’s founding fathers believed in an armed citizenry.1 And the idea of disarmament was not tolerated by our Texas forefathers who fought both domestic Indian terrorists and domestic Mexican tyrants.
175 years ago the early settlers of Texas began in earnest defending themselves from domestic tyranny near the city of Gonzales. Santa Anna had repudiated The Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1824 under which the Texians had come peacefully to settle and raise their families. 100 Mexican dragoons were ordered to take back a cannon that had been given to the colonists in 1831 for their defense against Indian attacks. The citizens of Gonzales, after delaying and requesting help from neighbors, voted not to give up the cannon, and subsequently 140 Texians approached the Mexican camp in the early morning of October 2, 1835 and were fired upon. In response the colonists raised a flag with a cannon in the middle of a white field with the challenge "Come and Take It" written underneath. Afterwards a brief skirmish ensued before the dragoons retreated, not being able to maneuver in the midst of the trees along the river, and being out-gunned by the freedom loving patriots who would not give up one of their means of self-defense.
We again face domestic tyrants who would deny us of our means of self-defense and tread upon our liberties which they are oath-bound to protect under the Texas and U.S. constitutions. It is time that we live under the rule of law - not men who usurp our individual rights. No man or government can rightfully take away a free man or woman’s right to self-defense. But things are backwards. Why should veterans be prevented from being armed in self-defense and in defense of their families? What about teachers and students on the UT campus? Do they not have a right to defend themselves? The Austin police and the UT warning system worked well, but what if the man had not merely fired shots into the air? Let’s face it, part of our problem with domestic criminals or terrorists is that we have home-grown tyrants who would have us solely dependent upon their arms. We must return to an armed citizenry which is not only a threat to tyrants, but also to murderous students such as Peter Odighizuwa, who was immediately stopped by armed students at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia in 2002 after murdering a dean and professor. The U.S. and Texas governments should not be allowed to limit the individual right to keep and bear arms. Let’s put individuals ahead of government. People are the first and last line of defense - not civil government.
1. Seeking to overcome arguments against ratification of the then proposed U.S. Constitution which did not overtly prohibit a standing army, Noah Webster wrote a pamphlet arguing that despite this possible defect the Constitution should still be ratified for this reason: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." (An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal States, 56. New York, 1888). For other sources see The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate (1982).