Posted on 05/11/2010 11:58:36 AM PDT by Noumenon
Sorry, but all political entities by definition are upheld in the ultimate sense by force. It may or may not be justified force, but any political entity that does not have the force available will be overthrown by the first opposition able and willing to use force against it.
...anyone who attempts to enslave me or my family risks his own death...
The police, the military, the CIA, FBI, UN, KGB, or any other person or entity who attempts to unlawfully usurp my freedom and enslave me will be met with fierce resistance to the point of my own demise. I will not be enslaved by tyrants. I would rather fight and die than not fight at all. If this post or any of the posts on FR are read by these entities, so be it. A free man is not afraid of any government or man. I am free because God allowed me to live. He died for my sins, and I will die to ensure that I remain free, if it comes to that.
As I've said in the past, however, I don't believe a plurality of the American public feels this way. Even if we wanted to bring about a show of force on our government, the turnout would likely be paltry. No one alive in this country knows the evil about to be unleashed, and they would be fine to accept it as long as they can continue to get to Facebook and watch American Idol
yup.
not true. Our nation was not founded on the idea of power retained at the point of gun. Our nation was *specifically* founded on the idea that when a government is destructive to the ends of the people, the people hve the right to abolish it.
They never argued that the US govermnent should maintain power via the gun. Thats Mao you’re thinking of.
Your response in #2 couldn’t be more incorrect in light of the founding principles set out in our nation’s birth documents.
For the larger part of our history we have adhered to those founding principles.
It is true we have slipped a few times - see, for instance, MacArthur/Washington, D.C./1930’s and some would offer the “Civil War” although unfortunately in that matter it was the South that opened armed hostilities.
In any event, DesertRhino, whose screen name suggests he has been there and done that, sorted it out for you.
Righto. The people of the United States retain the potential to use force (guns) to maintain their control over the government. Kind of the whole idea behind the Second Amendment.
In fact, the American Founders themselves did not rely exclusively on philosophical arguments in their revolution. They used force. Our Revolution grew out of the barrel of a gun, as do all revolutions. That’s why they call them revolutions, because they forcibly overthrow the existing institutions and are by definition illegal in terms of those institutions.
Of course any people have the right to abolish an existing government that no longer meets their needs. However, to do so will, with very rare exceptions, require the use of force.
His reinterpretation of the Founders motives in establishing this bastion of liberty can be seen in those in leadership positions today who claim we have a "flawed" Constitution--one which must be "changed" to be in tune with the times.
True enough if that is as far as you care to look. Taken in the context of 'the consent of the governed,' it isn't quite the same thing.
Wahtever errors Beard committed, the quote rings true for today.
Later.
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
That he said it, when he knew that he was misrepresenting the motives and aims of the very Founders he was quoting, makes his an even more interesting and very twisted comment.
Yes, he may have been considered, in fact, a "very dangerous citizen" if he selected certain "phrases" from the Founders in order to attribute motives to them which did not accurately reflect their intentions in establishing this great Republic.
That does not, in any way, make it a less accurate statement today about how the current Administration demonizes Tea Partiers who simply use the Founders' words to advocate a return to the Founding principles. I just found it strange that Beard, of all people, would be quoted in this setting.
Powerful article you wrote there.
Thanks for the info on Charles A. Beard.
We are one.
BTTT
As such an extremist, I oppose with every fiber of my being statism, socialism, collectivism, racism, altruism, internationalism, tribalism, unlimited democracy, pull politics, and the "New World Order;"
The Resister lives on!
Thanks for the repost. Reason is living on borrowed time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.