In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that any army that threatened liberty would find itself opposed by “a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands” and argued that the new federal government need not be feared because Americans possessed “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”
I've heard for decades that the right of citizens to bear arms — any kind of arms, in any amount — was to ensure that the government never had the opportunity to control all weaponry and commit illegal acts of violence against its own citizens.
Well, it's here. In Portland. A national police force, unwanted by the state of Oregon, has been deployed at the command of the executive branch to commit acts of violence against civilians. It is slated next for Chicago and other U.S. cities.
We have the FBI to fight crimes across state borders and the Department of Justice to enforce federal law. But we never envisioned a national police force, like the KGB, that supersedes states’ rights. One that operates at the bidding of the president against our own residents.
What if local or state police are not doing their job? Governors can enlist their national guards. Citizens can vote to remove governors, attorneys general and police chiefs. We can protest. We have recourse.
But if we allow the federal government to take police action against citizens, what recourse do we or the states in which we live have?
I'm hearing remarkably little concern about this from the very people who supposedly have been prepping for this moment their entire lives.
Could it be that ardent advocates of the Second Amendment only care about government overreach when it affects people with whom they disagree?
Kirsten Park, Salt Lake City
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible