Dig Him Up!
On our TV and computer screens we saw right-winged protesters armed with semiautomatic weapons displaying swastikas, nooses, and replicas of supposed confederate battle flags guarding the entrance and filling the chambers of Michigan’s State Capitol. How did they get by with this? Does the Second Amendment of the US Constitution give them the right to try to intimidate a duly elected Governor, government, with assault weapons and hate symbols? Has the Supreme Court now decided that assault weapons are a form of speech, or are maybe even citizens, and thus are protected under the First? Though Patrick Henry argued that armed militias were necessary for the ‘purposes’ of the state; there’s no evidence he thought they should be used against the state.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The First Amendment of the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First guarantees their right to protest, but neither amendment gives them the right to protest with the implied threat of shooting anyone who stands in their way. What am I missing? If we had been armed in our protest of the Vietnam War, they would have shot us; did anyway. If we had been armed in our protest of the Invasion of Iraq, they would have fabricated a reason to have shot us. Extending armed protests to its logical conclusion, we are looking at the possibility of open warfare between armed protesters and any opposition, including law enforcement; the possibility of the use of arms to overthrow a legitimately elected government. Does the constitution give them that right?