NavigationBanners
McCain-Feingold
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1856 guests online.
|
Add new commentUnalienable RightsSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 2008-04-27 16:04.
Two new ones from Larken Rose, telling the meaning of unalienable rights, and explaining why treason "is an insane, authoritarian concept." Well, treason does make sense, but it only applies to people who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If they do otherwise, they are guilty of treason. If you haven't sworn such an oath, then the Constitution doesn't apply to you. It is a limit on government power, not a license. People who talk about preserving their rights by way of "the system" don't understand what a right is. By definition, a "right" is something that you don't NEED "legal" permission to do. You have the right to do it no matter WHAT any "law" says. I know it's about as politically incorrect as you can get to say this, but the proper response to "gun control" is not lobbying and petitions--which imply that its up to the damn politicians to decide whether we can be armed or not. The proper response, if one actually believes in unalienable rights, is to declare, "I have the right to be armed, and trying to violate that right will be hazardous to your health."
Now it's time to get REALLY politically incorrect. Suppose Barrack "I'm-For-Unspecified-Change" Obama becomes President, and successfully introduces a bill to ban all private gun ownership, thus attempting to violate the rights of around 100,000,000 gun-owning Americans. If some thug then shows up at your door, and declares that in the name of King Obama (or King Bush, or any other tyrant) he's going to be swiping your firearms, you have the right to use any amount of force necessary to stop the thug. add new comment | quote | 86 reads
( categories: Politics )
Reply |
BlogrollFirearm NewsQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair Monthly ArchivesTTLB |
Recent comments
3 days 1 hour ago
6 days 22 hours ago
6 days 22 hours ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 1 day ago
2 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 15 hours ago
3 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 5 days ago
3 weeks 6 days ago