Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Drayno

The right to shoot tyrants, not deer

109 posts in this topic

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

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.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those with right on their side still found a way to pull it off.

Jingoistic nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jingoistic nonsense.

Whatever that means... Did they not pull it off? Did they not have right on their side?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever that means... Did they not pull it off? Did they not have right on their side?

In war, noone has right on their side. In fact, "right" exists nowhere in nature outside of the heads of people trying to justify something and sleep well at night.

They did what they felt they needed to in order to better themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In war, noone has right on their side. In fact, "right" exists nowhere in nature outside of the heads of people trying to justify something and sleep well at night.

They did what they felt they needed to in order to better themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

In nature, might makes right. As in war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that wouls make the Britsh right then in the War of Not liking taxes then wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that wouls make the Britsh right then in the War of Not liking taxes then wouldn't it?

Not with all that French gunpowder we blew the British tyrants away with, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not with all that French gunpowder we blew the British tyrants away with, no.

As I understood it, it was less about the tyranny of Britain and more the tyranny of lack of representation. If the King had said "rightio, have a few seats in Parliament, and a couple of Lords" America would still be a colony (or at least Federated a la Australia).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. 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.

i would not be so sure about that. look around.

Iraq, and Afghanistan.

us army is fighting guerrilla war and can't win for 10 years now, thousands of soldiers, tanks, air force...etc. and can't win few thousands insurgents in Afghanistan that have none of that, you telling me millions of armed, determined ppl wont matter, lol.

I'm not even talking about USSR Afghan war, even without stingers soviets had very hard time, fighting tribal warriors with ww1 rifles. even kids fought soviets.

history proves you wrong.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

well none has a right to shoot anyone for no reason either, be it bum from a street, or gvmt employee, nobody.

however in self defense, it doesn't matter who you shoot. i have a right to protect my self from any threat, including gvmt emploee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In war, noone has right on their side. In fact, "right" exists nowhere in nature outside of the heads of people trying to justify something and sleep well at night.

They did what they felt they needed to in order to better themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

I see your point but can't you justify the righteousness of the people who went to war in order to create the freest society the world has ever known an actually made it happen and actually created what would on to become the greatest, freest, richest, most legendary, most powerful beacon of hope the world has ever known?

i would not be so sure about that. look around.

Iraq, and Afghanistan.

us army is fighting guerrilla war and can't win for 10 years now, thousands of soldiers, tanks, air force...etc. and can't win few thousands insurgents in Afghanistan that have none of that, you telling me millions of armed, determined ppl wont matter, lol.

I'm not even talking about USSR Afghan war, even without stingers soviets had very hard time, fighting tribal warriors with ww1 rifles. even kids fought soviets.

history proves you wrong.

I wanted to make similar points about the wars in the Middle East. If those cavemen can hold us off for all these years what makes anyone so sure we couldn't? Although I do agree with the point that if the government really wanted to the military could crush us. That's something that I've never understood about the Mideast wars. We should have been able to obliterate alQueda or who ever else in a matter of probably weeks but maybe it's because we can't just carpet bomb the entire country. We have to be tactical and identify targets.

But, I do not think the government could roll over on US so easy because for one we are smarter than those bearded *******s over there and secondly our military is made up of once ordinary citizens with friends, family and love for country at home and its foolish to think that if the POTUS ordered a strike against the people that the all or any of the military would comply. In fact, I'd bet that he'd be the one of the first to get taken out when so many troops side with the people to overthrow tyranny. I don't know that a revolution would be easy but I think an overthrow could happen. The will of a couple hundred million people vs the will of a few hundred elite old men in DC... I don't see the competition.

Just think about if the Jews in Europe and the slaves in America, or anywhere else in the world because that's not just our sin, had their hands on a bunch of guns. Man would history sound different. Imagine if the revolutionaries here didn't have guns. We'd sound like Australians by now with a British flag hanging over some castle instead of a nonexistent Whitehouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.