Heh. When some of your politicians have claimed that the rubes living in the flyover country would have no chance against what the government can bring to the table if they dared to actually try for armed resistance one of these days...
... well, even if that is not true (hey, Afghanistan and rubes with guns against first the Russian army and then yours...), well, maybe if Musk is really truly on the side of the rubes now, I wonder what he could bring to the table if it gets to that stage and he starts to finance those rebelling hicks. For starters, he certainly seems to have the high ground pretty well covered.
Our Rights are conferred upon us by our Creator, and are unalienable. All the Bill of Rights does is call out a few specific rights to remind those in government service they are forbidden to infringe upon them. Although only a few of our rights are specifically mentioned, the fact is government is forbidden to infringe on any of our preexisting rights.
The 2nd Amendment is not for us, it is meant as a reminder for government that they are forbidden to infringe upon the right to bear arms in any way, shape, or form. Our right to self-defense applies to all threats to our lives, property, happiness, rights, liberty, etc., from all who pose a threat, including tyrannical government.
So, yes, the right to self-defense is the way to protect all of our rights and property from rogue government actions.
Today, people have been conditioned to quote the 2nd amendment, but never actually enforce it upon out of control government. Those who have, historically, have been vilified by the media and government, and most Americans blindly call those who exercise their right to defend against government tyranny whackos, crazy, and support government in imprisoning these people, or killing them.
So government has effectively infringed on our rights on a regular basis for decades because of that. They put the fear of government into the people, instead of the fear of people into the government.
What you fail to mention is that the Colonists had already tried to use every single avenue to redress their grievances and were ignored on every single one by the Kings men.
By the time of the Boston Tea Party, the abuses of the colonists by the British were beyond excessive, and spurred the actions taken by the rebels that day.
Ted Kaczynski is not really an example of someone using their right to self-defense against government. Randy Weaver is, though. The Branch Davidians would be another good example. There are too many others to list, but they are out there.
I watched a close relative get railroaded in Federal Court for challenging the IRS. I watched him forced to be tried without an attorney, the judge manipulating the jury, preventing him from entering any evidence in his defense, and creating the most unfair trial I have ever witnessed, until the current ones President Trump has been a victim of. So I know first hand that the courts have no justice for anyone that stands up to tyranny.
and spurred the actions taken by the rebels that day.
The tarred man assaulted R.T Hewes with his cane and knocked him out cold. Nearly cracked his skull. Hewes was standing up for a boy who was about to get his skull cracked. The boy was complaining that the comissioner had tipped his cart over the previous day.
Of course.. after he had his ass kicked and finally agreed to quit his job and go home a public asshole.. the only one to help him was Hewes himself who was disgusted with what the crowd did that day.
Randy Weaver is, though.
Kinda. The court fucked up his paperwork. If they hadn't he would have gone to court. Since he didn't then they sent the FBI, who shot his dog, and started the whole thing.
and creating the most unfair trial I have ever witnessed
How many have you witnessed?
for challenging the IRS.
That's a nice way of saying "broke one or more laws which have been clearly on the books for a long time."
America and the 2nd amendment isn't about taking shortcuts.
By what legitimate authority were they targeting Randy Weaver to begin with?
How many laws are repugnant to the Constitution? A lot of them. Unfair trials are caused by judges who forget the Constitution, and substitute their own beliefs or will, rather than putting the rights of the accused first.
I have attended many trials that were unfair to some degree. But some were so unfair that in the days of our founders, the judge and prosecutor would have been hung from the gallows.
No Branch of our Federal Government has any legitimate power to grant any person or entity full immunity for any act that violates the individual natural rights of Americans. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.
"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." - Quote by: John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA.
"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Quote by: Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Source: Federalist Papers #78, See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178)
“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President Letter to Francis W. Gilmer (27 June 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
“But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal of arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.” ~ Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813) in the Massachusetts Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, January 23, 1788, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.2 p.94 (Philadelphia, 1836)
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President to Justice William Johnson, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
“The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. ... Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Quote by: American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Source: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Quote by: Marbury vs. Madison Source: 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
“If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.” ~ Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) [Claude Frederic Bastiat] French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before -- and immediately following -- the French Revolution of February 1848 "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (1848)
By what legitimate authority were they targeting Randy Weaver to begin with?
In which part? Trying to make him an informant? None.
In the part where they caught him selling a sawed off shotgun? Well it's a written law. You may disagree with it, but Randy apparently didn't, because he was willing to stand trial for it.
The 2nd Amendment is a prohibition on government infringement. That law regarding sawed off shotguns is a violation of that prohibition, and an infringement of our preexisting right, as conferred upon us by our Creator. That makes that law null and void. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand liberty and the purpose of our federal government.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Quote by: Marbury vs. Madison Source: 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Quote by: American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Source: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256
History if proof, especially the last few years of 'communist' govs in Europe, Aus. and New Zealand, disarming the citizens and within a year, the citizens are subjects being arrested and killed for simply complaining about the corrupt govs.
and when someone babbles about the militia part, remind them that the constitution allows for state governors to call forth their militias (plural) to defend the state and it's borders.
so thank them for reminding us all what Texas should be doing.
Something that most times seems to have never occurred to the people I know here in Finland. But at least when I have told them that the 2nd amendment is in your constitution for that reason at least some got a bit thoughtful.
Says it right there in the Declaration of Independence!!
Amen.
What kind of guns does the richest man in the world own?
Maybe an F-15?
He's certainly got the rocket thing covered.
Probably any kind he can buy.
I mean he used to sell flame throwers so there's that 😄
His security detail has plenty. Nobody is ever getting close to him.
Heh. When some of your politicians have claimed that the rubes living in the flyover country would have no chance against what the government can bring to the table if they dared to actually try for armed resistance one of these days...
... well, even if that is not true (hey, Afghanistan and rubes with guns against first the Russian army and then yours...), well, maybe if Musk is really truly on the side of the rubes now, I wonder what he could bring to the table if it gets to that stage and he starts to finance those rebelling hicks. For starters, he certainly seems to have the high ground pretty well covered.
Our Rights are conferred upon us by our Creator, and are unalienable. All the Bill of Rights does is call out a few specific rights to remind those in government service they are forbidden to infringe upon them. Although only a few of our rights are specifically mentioned, the fact is government is forbidden to infringe on any of our preexisting rights.
The 2nd Amendment is not for us, it is meant as a reminder for government that they are forbidden to infringe upon the right to bear arms in any way, shape, or form. Our right to self-defense applies to all threats to our lives, property, happiness, rights, liberty, etc., from all who pose a threat, including tyrannical government.
So, yes, the right to self-defense is the way to protect all of our rights and property from rogue government actions.
Today, people have been conditioned to quote the 2nd amendment, but never actually enforce it upon out of control government. Those who have, historically, have been vilified by the media and government, and most Americans blindly call those who exercise their right to defend against government tyranny whackos, crazy, and support government in imprisoning these people, or killing them.
So government has effectively infringed on our rights on a regular basis for decades because of that. They put the fear of government into the people, instead of the fear of people into the government.
Amen. Thank you for sharing this.
The guy the Boston Tea Party tarred and feathered?
Yea, well.. they also swore out a warrant against him for his arrest first because he had committed actual crimes worthy of arrest.
Well if Ted Kaczynski had used lawsuits and not explosives he'd still be writing manifestos today. More people might actually be reading them.
They also made the courts basically inaccessible. I'd start with that.
What you fail to mention is that the Colonists had already tried to use every single avenue to redress their grievances and were ignored on every single one by the Kings men.
By the time of the Boston Tea Party, the abuses of the colonists by the British were beyond excessive, and spurred the actions taken by the rebels that day.
Ted Kaczynski is not really an example of someone using their right to self-defense against government. Randy Weaver is, though. The Branch Davidians would be another good example. There are too many others to list, but they are out there.
I watched a close relative get railroaded in Federal Court for challenging the IRS. I watched him forced to be tried without an attorney, the judge manipulating the jury, preventing him from entering any evidence in his defense, and creating the most unfair trial I have ever witnessed, until the current ones President Trump has been a victim of. So I know first hand that the courts have no justice for anyone that stands up to tyranny.
The tarred man assaulted R.T Hewes with his cane and knocked him out cold. Nearly cracked his skull. Hewes was standing up for a boy who was about to get his skull cracked. The boy was complaining that the comissioner had tipped his cart over the previous day.
Of course.. after he had his ass kicked and finally agreed to quit his job and go home a public asshole.. the only one to help him was Hewes himself who was disgusted with what the crowd did that day.
Kinda. The court fucked up his paperwork. If they hadn't he would have gone to court. Since he didn't then they sent the FBI, who shot his dog, and started the whole thing.
How many have you witnessed?
That's a nice way of saying "broke one or more laws which have been clearly on the books for a long time."
America and the 2nd amendment isn't about taking shortcuts.
By what legitimate authority were they targeting Randy Weaver to begin with?
How many laws are repugnant to the Constitution? A lot of them. Unfair trials are caused by judges who forget the Constitution, and substitute their own beliefs or will, rather than putting the rights of the accused first.
I have attended many trials that were unfair to some degree. But some were so unfair that in the days of our founders, the judge and prosecutor would have been hung from the gallows.
No Branch of our Federal Government has any legitimate power to grant any person or entity full immunity for any act that violates the individual natural rights of Americans. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.
"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." - Quote by: John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA.
"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Quote by: Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Source: Federalist Papers #78, See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178)
“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President Letter to Francis W. Gilmer (27 June 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
“But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal of arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.” ~ Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813) in the Massachusetts Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, January 23, 1788, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.2 p.94 (Philadelphia, 1836)
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President to Justice William Johnson, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
“The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
“The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. ... Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Quote by: American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Source: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Quote by: Marbury vs. Madison Source: 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
“If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.” ~ Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) [Claude Frederic Bastiat] French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before -- and immediately following -- the French Revolution of February 1848 "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (1848)
In which part? Trying to make him an informant? None.
In the part where they caught him selling a sawed off shotgun? Well it's a written law. You may disagree with it, but Randy apparently didn't, because he was willing to stand trial for it.
I'm not reading the rest of that total sperg out.
The 2nd Amendment is a prohibition on government infringement. That law regarding sawed off shotguns is a violation of that prohibition, and an infringement of our preexisting right, as conferred upon us by our Creator. That makes that law null and void. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand liberty and the purpose of our federal government.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Quote by: Marbury vs. Madison Source: 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Quote by: American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Source: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256
History if proof, especially the last few years of 'communist' govs in Europe, Aus. and New Zealand, disarming the citizens and within a year, the citizens are subjects being arrested and killed for simply complaining about the corrupt govs.
Amen, and history will repeat itself if we do not learn from it.
The 2nd Amendment is for bad government. That's the easiest way to put it.
You can also say the 2nd Amendment is a hedge against bad government.
If you're a person who thinks the government is perfect and can do no wrong, obviously you're not going to need the 2nd Amendment.
The very reason they want to get rid of the Constitution.
and when someone babbles about the militia part, remind them that the constitution allows for state governors to call forth their militias (plural) to defend the state and it's borders.
so thank them for reminding us all what Texas should be doing.
Had government not gotten rid of any militia's, I am sure Texas would have called upon them.
Something that most times seems to have never occurred to the people I know here in Finland. But at least when I have told them that the 2nd amendment is in your constitution for that reason at least some got a bit thoughtful.