According to Firearm Chronicles
From time to time, political sides adopt certain words and start using them with reckless abandon. One of my favorites has been the word “grifter,” which applies to certain parties on all sides of the political spectrum, but has also been applied to pretty much anyone who makes a living with their opinion.
Lately, the Left has fully embraced the term “insurrection” and all variations thereof. That’s been the case since the Capitol incident on January 6.
Much of the time, people horribly misuse the term.
Right now, they’re using it to describe a pro-Second Amendment resolution in Michigan.
Michigan senators bickered Wednesday over a resolution that would charge the state with defending the Second Amendment from any future federal gun control measures.
Senate Resolution 22, sponsored by Sen. Lana Theis, R-Brighton, seeks to “preserve the Second Amendment” by stating that the state Senate would oppose federal laws that “infringe on the right to bear arms.”
The resolution passed along partisan lines, 20-15, with Democrats uproariously opposing it. Sen. Erika Geiss, D-Taylor, called it “insurrectionist.”
“This resolution is four pages of dark, insurrection-laden language and militia support that challenges the laws of this land,” she said on the Senate floor. “It’s a resolution that says that if we don’t like the laws, we’ll meet you at the Michigan border with our guns. It’s incredible how fast you’ll do anything to protect your guns.”
Of course, that’s a great deal of hysterical hyperbole by Geiss.
But, is the defense of the Second Amendment, such as from the resolution, “insurrectionist?” Nope. How on earth could a resolution in support of the Constitution and the rights it protects be considered insurrectionist in nature?
The Second Amendment doesn’t exist for deer hunting. It’s not about duck hunting, either. It’s not about collecting firearms. No, it’s about “the people” being able to act in self-defense, either individually or, should our government turn tyrannical, en masse. Should that happen, what would the government call those who rise up? Insurrectionists.
Our right to keep and bear arms is protected expressly for any time when an insurrection is required as the last means to defend our rights. Yes, that includes our Second Amendment rights, but it’s not limited to that. Not by a longshot.
Let’s understand that a tyrannical government is not limited to what the Right would consider tyrannical, either. It’s why the defense of the Second Amendment should be bipartisan. It’s the “break glass in case of emergency” check on government overreach, regardless of which direction that government is reaching.
Yet again, such a government would call any armed resistance an insurrection. The American Revolution was an insurrection from the British point of view. Such would be the case of, say, gay rights advocates openly fighting a government that wants to herd LGBT Americans into camps. Would that insurrection be wrong? I’d say no. I’d argue that it’s the only moral response to such a government.
And that is the kind of thing the Second Amendment is there for.
So could such a resolution as the one in Michigan be considered insurrectionist? Well, the resolution doesn’t call for any type of armed resistance against federal tyranny. It simply recognizes the inherent power of the states (including Michigan) to not cooperate with federal gun laws that they deem to be a violation of the Constitution.
If the Michigan resolution is “insurrectionist,” then what about California’s sanctuary state law for illegal immigrants? That’s a law, not just a resolution, and it prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal agencies to enforce federal immigration law. Does Geiss consider that insurrectionary language? I doubt it, even though it goes much further than the Michigan resolution in terms of flexing the state’s powers under the Tenth Amendment.
The Democrats’ objections to this resolution aren’t based on fact, but a narrative that any support for the Second Amendment makes you a dangerous insurrectionist intent on burning the country down. If the Michigan Democrats want to call this resolution an insurrectionist document, the response from Michigan Republicans should be to call their opposition un-American.