on what constitutional grounds to they continue to own it?
If no valid ground for ownership, they must sell it back to the states or private citizens.
When “law” becomes tyranny, resistance becomes duty.
Aim small, Y’all. We have your back.
But after thinking about it some more I find it completely consistent with the words of the founders.
“In light of past worldwide atrocities committed by tyrants, though, to threaten the Second Amendment rights of ordinary American citizens is itself insanity. Those wishing to ban assault weapons fail to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment. “
Dr. Ben Carson @ TownHall
Poking a hornet’s nest is dumb.
Poking it some more is plain stupid.
Kicking it open can be.. a really bad thing for somebody.
Let’s see. A diplomatic war with Russia, a Diplomatic war with China and insurrection at home.
1000 day’s may be too much.
Regardless of what Beck or Hannity say, fight fire with fire!
Throw tortoises at the BLM. Use a catapult and rain tortoises down on their heads. Send boxes of tortoises via FedEX to BLM forts.
No government at gunpoint!
Our Founders would whole heatedly support this position. They rose up and fought against tyranny.
It is correct to emphasize that they will NOT fire unless fired upon. Let the people see the true tyrants -- those in government.
Just another dumb statement....IMO. I have a couple deer rifles that will totally out shoot...any military style rifle..
Okay...rant off.
It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people, in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defence, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every institution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man — it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.- John Adams (1787)
“they are prepared to use deadly force “
The BLM used “deadly force” in killing Bundy’s cattle, but was it reasonable under the circumstances?
Anyone actually prepared to defend himself or herself, and their family, is prepared to use reasonable force under the circumstances—which may include deadly force. So what Shaw is saying isn’t really that extraordinary.
Of course DUmpster Divers—and even a few here—will fluster: “I swan! Oh my goodness gracious, me oh my—`Deadly force’! That’s really extreme, maybe even racist, Heavens to Murgatroyd—where are my smelling salts!?”
Now, in most States there is language that defines justifiable homicide and the use of deadly force. Most of them are tied to what a reasonable man would do to protect the life or protect from sever bodily harm a person with a deadly weapon or someone the person with the deadly weapons feels is in danger.
The real question is what would a “reasonable man” do in a situation where he has the ability to use deadly force to protect someone from being killed or harmed. An interesting question, if the threat also happens to be a government employee.
Personally, I would not want to try to guess how a jury would come down on the question, but I sure would jump at an opportunity to be on that jury so as to let the government know how I feel about their militarization of various government agencies.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2013/07/23/bill-oreilly-president-obama-and-race-problem
The whole Fox News team has proven what a bunch of sniveling, pc, boot-licking cowards they all are. So much for journalism on their part. When King O’Reilly says it; it’s groundbreaking. When Cliven Bundy says it; it’s rascist and appalling.
Tick... tick... tick...