NavigationBanners
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1932 guests online.
|
Big Government Looks Guilty NowSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 2001-12-12 13:30.
by Bill St. Clair
On December 11, The Washington Post ran an article by Charles
Schumer,
Big Government Looks Better Now Even if that were not the case, the only way to defend against a distributed threat is with a distributed defense. The second amendment to the Constitution states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Militia referred to here is the whole body of the people, armed and trained in the use of military weapons. This distributed defense is even more necessary in the light of 9/11 than it was when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. Instead of talking about growing the federal government, Mr. Schumer should be talking about removing legal barriers to the growth of local militias. Unfortunately, he is directly responsible, via the miriad of anti-gun laws that he has proposed and supported over the years, for many of these barriers. I consider his behavior in this regard to be nothing short of treason. add new comment | quote | 1007 reads
|
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" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith 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 TTLB |
Recent comments
1 day 20 hours ago
3 days 2 hours ago
3 days 2 hours ago
1 week 4 hours ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
1 week 5 days ago
2 weeks 6 days ago
3 weeks 4 days ago