I am sick of the term "law abiding citizen" and I am especially sick of it when used in reference to gun rights and gun control.
What does having the Right to defend yourself have to do with some State deciding whether or not you deserve that right based on how law abiding you are to its edicts and proclamations?
If the State says that guns are now illegal, and to own one would be to break the law, are you going to be a law abiding citizen then? What if the State, which is nothing more than a gang of thieves, is unethical; am I still supposed to be a law abiding citizen?
My Right to defend myself, my family, and my property predates the State. The 2nd amendment didn't invent the Right to be armed, it was already known that one had the Right to be armed.
What gives an illegitimate State the Right to say that only "law abiding citizens" can be armed? Abiding by what laws? Whose laws? The State's arbitrary law that merely is intended to enslave us?
Quit using that term. It's another way of saying law abiding serfs.
Boot licking slaves.
You think when the colonist revolted against the King he thought that they were law abiding citizens? Should they have been disarmed because of it? Should they ever have been allowed to be armed?
Following the regulations, statutes and political laws of a State has nothing to do with the Right to be Armed.
Our Right to be armed is specifically to resist an overpowering and corrupt State; secondly, for personal self- defense, and lastly to be able to feed ourselves by hunting.
We know why Patrick Henry cherished the rifle.
An armed people.
Not a "Law abiding citizen".
What does having the Right to defend yourself have to do with some State deciding whether or not you deserve that right based on how law abiding you are to its edicts and proclamations?
If the State says that guns are now illegal, and to own one would be to break the law, are you going to be a law abiding citizen then? What if the State, which is nothing more than a gang of thieves, is unethical; am I still supposed to be a law abiding citizen?
My Right to defend myself, my family, and my property predates the State. The 2nd amendment didn't invent the Right to be armed, it was already known that one had the Right to be armed.
What gives an illegitimate State the Right to say that only "law abiding citizens" can be armed? Abiding by what laws? Whose laws? The State's arbitrary law that merely is intended to enslave us?
Quit using that term. It's another way of saying law abiding serfs.
Boot licking slaves.
You think when the colonist revolted against the King he thought that they were law abiding citizens? Should they have been disarmed because of it? Should they ever have been allowed to be armed?
Following the regulations, statutes and political laws of a State has nothing to do with the Right to be Armed.
Our Right to be armed is specifically to resist an overpowering and corrupt State; secondly, for personal self- defense, and lastly to be able to feed ourselves by hunting.
We know why Patrick Henry cherished the rifle.
An armed people.
Not a "Law abiding citizen".
Three felonies a day committed by the average person. There are no "law abiding citizens".
ReplyDeleteJim in Kenai
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/12/jerrold-nadler-gun-grabbing-leninist.html
ReplyDeleteKey sections:
The unexamined premise ... is that it is perfectly sane and rational for the segment of society most deeply implicated in the violent deaths of innocent people to have a monopoly on “legitimate” violence. Embedded within that premise is the assumption that the same government that monopolizes violence will have the exclusive privilege of defining “legitimacy,” as well. For him, as for totalitarians of all varieties, that which the government does is innately legitimate, and those whom the government decides to kill have an inescapable duty to die.
By invoking the mystical notion of “state authority,” government officials act as necromancers, transmuting such base acts as “killing and robbery and coercion” into noble acts of public policy.
These people do what they do primarily because the populace at large accepts it as legitimate. It is for this reason that the people who ACTUALLY DO THE KILLING, the soldiers, the internal occupying army of the FBI, DEA, ATF, et al, ad nauseum, including their local auxiliary forces, are PRAISED instead of held in contempt on for living off the hard won earnings of the productive and then oppressing them. So long as this applies a violent revolution would be counter productive, even if successful. Once it no longer applies a violent revolution would be unnecessary. They are weakest in the realm of ideas and this is where it is most advantageous and moral to attack them.
Jim in Kenai
Aaron was generous in his reading of this on the air to give me credit, but only the last paragraph was mine. The rest is Mr. Grigg's. His site should be on everyone's list of "must reads" in my opinion. Will tries to scrape together a living via his excellent writing skills. Anyone who enjoys his writing might want to consider tossing a few dimes (silver ones) his way.
DeleteJim in Kenai
A "law abiding citizien" is a salmon which can't think outside the trap.
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.independent.org/2013/01/03/the-salmon-trap-an-analogy-for-peoples-entrapment-by-the-state/
That doesn't make all "outside the trap" thinking good, obviously.
Jim in Kenai
You only live twice: one time for yourself and once for the state. However, the part that you live for yourself is being eaten away by visible and invisible taxation, leaving you as little more than tax-paying, regulation-complying, law-obeying, kowtowing protoplasm. Que pobre vida! -- Robert Higgs
ReplyDeleteJim in Kenai
http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/11/newtown-and-the-bipartsian-police-state/
ReplyDeleteA wonderful and short dissection of how the different sides fail in this (and related) issues.