Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A total gun ban would be the start of a war in the courts, politics and possibly civil war.
2 posted on 01/26/2013 12:59:39 PM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mountainlion

An attempted, ‘Total Gun Ban’, would be the start of the shooting war.


4 posted on 01/26/2013 1:04:57 PM PST by Delta Dawn (at)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: mountainlion

10 posted on 01/26/2013 1:18:01 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: mountainlion

A “war in the courts” does nothing to stop anyone from being disarmed by agents of the state. What would have been the fate of those in the militia on April 19, 1775 had they obeyed the orders of the British army and laid down their arms trusting in a later favorable determination to be made by the court of King George III? They, as well as we will be disarmed in the interim and subject to the will of others. No my friends. We live in an age in which we have no true representation; but instead we live under the rule of those who occupy political office for the sole purposes of enriching themselves, their friends and associates, while imposing their personal agendas upon us. Far and away from the repesentation we are due and entitled to as set forth by the founders.

War? More like a resistance to a usurpation of power. Self defense and the possession of effective means of providing for it to resist the power of the state or criminal actors is a natural right. Parity with the force government may offer against our well being should be the goal and any attempt to remove the weapons we possess for that defense should be met not with compliance, based on the hope of a finding that the act of confiscation was illegal, but rather with resistance in the first instance of it when and wherever that may occur. Would you surrender to an armed individual if you yourself were armed and place yourself at the mercy of your captor? Would you surrender control of your life to your enemy on the battlefield while you still possessed the means to resist and allow that enemy to decide your fate? A government demand to disarm is no less of a threat. Government, meaning those disloyal to their oath of allegiance to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by promulgating restrictions on the possession of arms by the citizenry, is no less a menace than a common armed criminal. “...shall not be infringed.” “Well here we are. Imagine where we’ll be”

Ladies and gentlemen, you and I alone will determine at what point to offer resistance to the demands of armed agents of the state when they call for your disarmament. Will you know their intent if you comply? Toward a better understanding an in order to educate yourself as to the possibilites that may await you I suggest you read The Gulag Archipelago and this brief essay by David Mamet, a playright and former member of the “brain dead left”, in his own words. Having completed these assignments you will be better prepared to deal with the reality of the moment when you are asked to surrender your arms and by doing so surrender the last of your abilities to control your freedom. Mamet’s essay here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html

As a ‘law abiding citizen’ when does it become necessary to be otherwise? Time to choose.


32 posted on 01/26/2013 2:07:37 PM PST by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson