Long time readers will remember Josh Horwitz, the El Guapo of citizen disarmament and advocate of a government monopoly of force when dealing with the citizenry.
Here he is in a snit about the Second Amendment rallies in DC and across the Potomac from the District of Criminals. We make him and his tyrannical pals nervous. As well we should, the Founders would say.
Mike
III
20 comments:
This guy is wrong! The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is implicit, if not stated exactly thus, that citizens of America have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, specifically, our own. No, it doesn't say we have the right to "insurrection," however any overt move to defend ones self against tyranny IS insurrection. What part of the wording of the 2nd doesn't this guy get?
Furthermore, there is still extant within the Constitution the right to secede. If all else fails legally, the states CAN remove themselves from the union with a 2/3rd, or more if required, vote within their own legislatures. Sure wish Georgia would consider such a move. Even to contemplate secession, if done before the public eye, would go a long way toward turning things around in D.C. The rest of the country, those that decide they love the nanny federal government can stay unionized as they wish; but, the rest that don't should consider a Confederacy of States and go back to the Constitution.
Poor guy, his blood pressure must be through the roof!
The statists are so scared they are pissing themselves. Crapping their knickers can't be far behind.
He sure has his panties in a knot doesnt he.
How does a lawful protest present an open threat to the rule of law?
If his First Amendment rights were infringed, would he revolt?
"...a group of individuals who have openly stated they will engage in "bloody revolution" against our government if their demands are not met,..."
They still do not understand. The world view of progressives is one that does not allow for the understanding of anyone other than themselves.
We will not back away from our responsibilities to ourselves, our families and our Republic. Threaten our way of life, shoot at us, even kill us; but we will not back away.
Hold on a sec. Gotta remove this cleaning rod from my rifle so I can use two hands to type.
Okay, got it.
patrickhenry3
III
More of the Left bullshit and lies. More of their pissing in their pants hysteria!!!
Doug
Newark, Ohio
He lost me at the headline. Fuck him, the horse he rode in on, and the people who think he said something worth hearing.
Support of the Supreme law of the land is somehow treasonous and threatening.
Wouldn't this soulless sonofabitch have made a great Judenrat?
Interesting, this "toxic" ideology that the government is tyrannical and that insurrection is alright is exactly what brought this country into existence.
@Anynonmous: "If his First Amendment rights were infringed, would he revolt?"
Only if a right-winger like Bush II did it, because, in Lefty-land, only the Right can ever infringe upon a right. If a left-wing statist did it, it is all for the common good; therefore, not an infringement, and he would be a good little aparatchik.
Guess this Ass Hole forgot to read the Declaration of Independence,You know that paper our Founding Father wrote Before they wrote the Constitution. I believe that they very expressly outlined the Justifiable Reasons why they Revolted against their Oppressor. And those same reasons would be just as Justified today as they were then.
These gentlemen really should read a few of the Federalist Papers and or some of the letters of correspondence between the Founding Fathers. MAYBE THEN THEY MIGHT START TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. And why Government Should be Limited and Individual rights are so important,ESPESCIALY the Second Amendment by which ALL other rights protected.
dennis
III
If you have to ask for permition then hang it up! MR. M. V. quickest way to give any body the bum's rush is to agree with them and say Sure first thing next year. Al III
Such violence was decried by our Founders, and we should see it as the same grave threat to the rule of law as they did.
Even by huffingtonpost.com standards...what? Is this a joke?
To me the most educational aspect of recent events has been learning not that self-described progressives are willing to treat peaceful protestors and political dissidents as criminals, but how many are willing to admit this in public. Evidently many progressives aren't merely closet fascists; they're open, proud, shout-it-from-the-rooftops fascists. From the way they write I'm surprised some of them still have the sense not to appear in public wearing swastika armbands.
This is a trend we can, and should, encourage. Even the most apolitical American is liable to be put off by a screeching gaggle of government supremacists who want to treat anybody who disagrees with the regime as a criminal.
What do you expect to read on the Puff Ho?
As soon as I saw the headline, I escaped the sickening assault on my reason and patience with a rapier like click of my mouse, returning here where Right prevails!
Have a look at some of the other garbage over there... if you have the stomach for it.
Look into the black heart of the dupes and running dogs of the Enemy, and steel your resolve.
"Our elected officials must be united in denouncing the use of political violence as a tool to overturn the results of the democratic process. Such violence was decried by our Founders, and we should see it as the same grave threat to the rule of law as they did."
I think this guy might be right. If memory serves me right, the Revolution was fought with squirt guns, hand buzzers, and "kick me" signs affixed to each others backs...
...sarcasm suspended; WTF planet has this douche-nozzle been residing on? Which "democratic process" is he referring to, the one where the majority of sheeple succumb to party-line marketing campaigns and thus make it legal to defecate on the Constitution as long as your favorite "D" or "R" say it's cool? How did he miss the part of our history where the Sons of Liberty would destroy property that did not belong to them, would pick fights with British soldiers to instigate trouble, or would tar-and-feather various servants of the crown, literally? How else can one say "FUCK YOU" in terms that in no way can be misconstrued as ambiguous or flexible? He seemed to concede that the 2nd Amendment allowed a means to prevent tyranny...apparently tyranny is a figment of our collective imaginations and only existed when that numb skull Bush was in office. Our Bill of Rights has already been shredded and or legislated to a vestige of what it was meant to be; freedom to peacefully assemble, speak freely, bear arms, to be secure in your person property effects and papers without warrant, the right to due process of law and trial by a jury of peers, the right to remain silent, States rights and all other rights to be retained by We the People have all been sodomized to some extent or another by either the GOP or the Dems. I am not a big fan of being violently sodomized and neither are most people who have their wits about them. Others can't figure out whether they consented to the rape or not because "democracy makes it okay for 51% to screw the other 49% over".
Hey Josh "Donkey Show" Horwitz, learn your American history or STFU!
@Anonymous@7.41
+III
I think he'd make a perfectly fine windsock.
What democracy do they keep referring to? Is that the one where the Congress passed legislation AGAINST the will of the majority of Americans, then staged a victory march through the middle of the protesters hoping to trigger somekind of violence which didn't happen; whereupon some old civil rights extremists then alleged they were called disparaging names and spat upon but can't provide one bit of either audio or video evidence in order to collect the $200,000.00 being offered by Breitbart and another guy? That democracy?
That violence was decried by the founders? What?
It was utiized effectively by the founders.
Post a Comment