Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* - - - - 1 votes

The right to shoot tyrants, not deer


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1    Drayno

Drayno

    Draynor's Finest

  • Member
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 January 2013 - 01:32 AM

http://www.washingto...rants-not-deer/

Quote

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.



"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II

#2    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

  • "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" -- Shakespeare

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:39 AM

Here's some more thoughts hopefully along the lines of the OP:
http://www.insurance...say-t25238.html

Posted Image


#3    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,219 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 12 January 2013 - 03:19 AM

The cops right now that abuse there power to an extent that is well, gross and well protected. To think the Second Amendment will save you from a govermental force of that of the United States is fooling onesself.  The Second Amendment is so out dated that it has become pointless as to what it was intended to do.  You see well organized malitials should also have black hawk helo`s and tanks and Jets, everything needed to defend against a tyrant. As we see there is absalutely no opposition to a tyrant type government such as the US if the goverment wanted to cruch private gun owners they could no matter what pea shooter one has.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#4    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 12 January 2013 - 03:25 AM

no, you do not have the wing nut right to shoot government employees. What a crock.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#5    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,597 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 12 January 2013 - 03:34 AM

View Postninjadude, on 12 January 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

no, you do not have the wing nut right to shoot government employees. What a crock.

Did the revolutionaries have that right? No. Did they ensure that citizens did have that right in the next revolution? Yes.

How would you ensure freedom over a tyrant if the situation arose?


#6    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,749 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:20 AM

How do you define a tyrant?
Was Booth guilty of murder or was he upholding his Second Amendment right to defy and defeat a tyrant?

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#7    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,597 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:33 AM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 12 January 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

How do you define a tyrant?
Was Booth guilty of murder or was he upholding his Second Amendment right to defy and defeat a tyrant?

History is written by the victors

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 12 January 2013 - 05:34 AM.


#8    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,749 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 06:23 AM

That's true.
But that's not what I asked. Was he upholding his rights under the 2nd Amendment when he shot Lincoln? He clearly thought he was a tyrant.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#9    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,597 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:20 AM

It depends on perspective and popular support. In this case no. There appeared to be no justification for such force to be used. You would be hard pressed to justify the position that lincoln was a tyrant. Buts that what the victors want me to think.


#10    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,595 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:47 AM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 12 January 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

How do you define a tyrant?
Was Booth guilty of murder or was he upholding his Second Amendment right to defy and defeat a tyrant?

That seems to be quite simple lately in the USA: I can't have it my way so the majority is a tyrant.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#11    Drayno

Drayno

    Draynor's Finest

  • Member
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 12 January 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

That seems to be quite simple lately in the USA: I can't have it my way so the majority is a tyrant.

And that is why in every democracy that turned totalitarian or fascist it started with the majority.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II

#12    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,749 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:07 PM

View PostEonwe, on 12 January 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

And that is why in every democracy that turned totalitarian or fascist it started with the majority.
actually, the National Socialists only got about 30% of the vote bpth times they got elected, so thst' the minority - they just had the swing of power, which Hitler used to weasel himself the vice-cancellorship.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

#13    Drayno

Drayno

    Draynor's Finest

  • Member
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2013 - 12:12 AM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 12 January 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

actually, the National Socialists only got about 30% of the vote bpth times they got elected, so thst' the minority - they just had the swing of power, which Hitler used to weasel himself the vice-cancellorship.

Majority is a loose term.

In terms of majority, I am referring to the support of a cult of personality more so than political logistics.

As in a majority of the population being misled or enabling bad policies.

Edited by Eonwe, 13 January 2013 - 12:18 AM.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II

#14    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 13 January 2013 - 03:02 AM

Gee and here I thought the King's soldiers got defeated because France, Spain, and the Dutch got involved, because the British wasn't fully committed to the fight, and because the American clued in that random armed citizens sucked and they needed an actually trained army. Silly historical research.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#15    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,548 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:08 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 12 January 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

As we see there is absalutely no opposition to a tyrant type government such as the US if the goverment wanted to cruch private gun owners they could no matter what pea shooter one has.

So what's your solution for dire straights. Bend over and take it? Ah, vote you'll say. And what if votes become ignored? How can you so easily preach complacency? Even if such scenarios are unlikely why do you refuse to acknowledge the history of governments past? It's not impossible and even if we have no chance at all having a gun is a better chance than not.

View PostCorp, on 13 January 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

Gee and here I thought the King's soldiers got defeated because France, Spain, and the Dutch got involved, because the British wasn't fully committed to the fight, and because the American clued in that random armed citizens sucked and they needed an actually trained army. Silly historical research.
Those with right on their side still found a way to pull it off. Who cares if it was sloppy? It still got done. Please don't make me make fun of Canada again for its mediocrity. I really likes ya guys but you have no bragging rights about anything except maybe hockey and in the grand scheme of things sports aren't important.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users