Citizens have a duty to oppose tyranny | ParkRecord.com

Citizens have a duty to oppose tyranny

Mike Knight, Holladay, Utah

Though I no longer live or work in Park City, I am near enough and interested enough in what goes on in my old stompin’ grounds that I still do pick up and read The Park Record. I saw a rebuttal to a piece written by Glenn Wright back on January 16th. The rebuttal was written by Randy Jones. While Jones’ piece was a well-crafted and well-reasoned response I felt the need to hitch on to what Jones was positing and extend the rebuttal.

Most to the point, I intend to respond to Wright’s assertion that owning weapons with which to take up arms against the federal government is "treasonous."

A careful reading of the U.S. Constitution shows that the clear and definite purpose of our citizen militia, and the reason that it must be armed, is to serve as a means to resist an overweening federal government. This republic was founded on that proposition, and that proposition is not conditioned on how attractive the chief executive may be.

The obverse of Wright’s position is the true intent of the 2nd (and 3rd) Amendment(s). The citizen has a duty to oppose tyranny even if the government is the source of it. It could, however, be said that it is treasonous not to do so. The constitutional mandate is no less applicable when it is the duly elected politicians who insult the Constitution. Sadly, We the People let them do that all the time.

Americans have the right to own and bear arms for personal defense, for property defense, and for homeland defense. Some of our guns are for hunting and sport shooting, but not all of them, because they don’t have to be. The 2nd Amendment does not have an expiration date. It wasn’t written for the "frontier," or the nation’s westward expansion. It was written for posterity, but only " if you can keep it." (Benj. Franklin, 1787).

The increasing number of home invasions, burglaries and shootings in public places over the last few years have heightened my vigilance and convinced me that I needed to take additional steps to protect my home, my family, and our way of life. I and my family have done so. You can, too, if you want.

Recommended Stories For You

With ever-tightening restrictions on owning weapons even for home defense I wouldn’t relocate to New York State, or back to California (where I am a native son) for a million dollars. I am already concerned for the next family, or public meeting, or classroom that will be victimized in a "gun free zone." Bad people pay no attention whatsoever to weapons laws, so those are simply less safe places to be.

Those of us in opposition to pointless and/or unconstitutional political exigencies are not "towing (sic?) the NRA line." Rather, we are positing that the dialog and the planning must actually impact criminal behavior, and must contemplate inhibiting the mentally unstable from obtaining firearms while at the same time holding harmless the lawful citizen exercising his constitutional right and duty to society.

Do I need a tactical rifle and stacks of ammo at home in case of an invasion from Canada? Probably not. But, I do have the right to own and operate a fast-shooting, short-barreled, tactical rifle with a 30-round clip to defend my family, my home, and my country. Yes, I do. If the window glass breaks, or my door is smashed in, I will be on the defensive, and 7-10 rounds might only be a start.