Here's among the latest anti-gun squealings coming out of Salon.com:
Here is a truth so fundamental that it should be self-evident: When legitimately constituted state authority stands down in the face of armed threats, the very foundation of the republic is in danger. And yet that is exactly what happened at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch this spring: An alleged criminal defeated the cops, because the forces of lawlessness came at them with guns — then Bureau of Land Management officials further surrendered by removing the government markings from their vehicles to prevent violence against them.Seriously?
Has the writer, Rick Perlstein, taken a look at the fundamental threats to our national 'constituted state authority' along the southern U.S. border? Does Perlstein get steamed when the president unilaterally changes laws or ignores them altogether?
Thomas Jefferson seemingly had no problems with the kind of rebellion seen last spring at Bundy Ranch. Jefferson was a fan of little rebellions, perhaps applauding their successes, but certainly appealing for leniency when they failed.
He said so in a letter to James Madison:
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government."Of course, Jefferson was also a fan of firearms, and on another occasion wrote to a relative that long walks with a gun offered better exercise with less risk of injury than playing ball sports.