Monday, February 18, 2013

Freedom Quote of the Day

If you don’t want freedom for people you despise, you don’t want freedom. And if you’re not banding together with the ones you don’t despise, even the ones you think are maybe being a little wrong-headed or silly, you’re missing a great bet for safeguarding your own kind of freedom. Because it’s not a question of who’s right or who’s wrong in the greater freedom movement. They’re all right. And the ones oppressing them are all wrong.

Joel.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 05:48 PM
(3) CommentsPermalink

Rising Voices of Civil Disobedience

In a piece penned for PJ Media, Paul Hsieh asks, Would New Gun Laws Spark Widespread Civil Disobedience?  Hsieh cites numerous sheriffs, sheriff associations, and a number of state legislatures which appear to support an answer in the positive to the question, which is also a positive.  Towards the end of his piece, Hsieh states the following.

No one can know exactly how this will play out. This will depend on how strongly the central authorities wish to enforce the law in the teeth of the defiance, and how committed gun-rights supporters are to sustained civil disobedience. If history is any guide, violence is not out of the question, even if cooler heads on both sides do not wish it. New gun laws could be the political equivalent of a spark thrown onto dry tinder.

Violence is indeed a possibility if the government moves forward in attempts to strengthen legislation to solidify their position that guns should only be in the hands of the government, and certain chosen elitist bodyguards, all in direct violation of the Second Amendment, an amendment that allegedly guarantees an inalienable right, which quite evidently, in the eyes of the state, is alienable.

While I am pleased to note rising voices of civil disobedience in this matter, a more principled reason for the right to keep and bear arms is stated clearly by Billy Beck in a post from June 10, 2009 titled “Why Do I Fight For 2A Rights?”, which was written in response to a comment by an individual who lived under communism.

I have more principled reasons for my stand on owning firearms, and I don’t care one whit in the world for the Second Amendment. It means nothing to me. My rights have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, and when it dawns on people that it has finally been erased—the principal danger of all political premises posed as “social contracts”—my rights will still validly exist, even if I die defending them. I own firearms because I have a right to private property. That is the First Thing.

As Billy states in closing, toujours l’audace.”

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 11:04 AM
(1) CommentsPermalink