Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HICKS: Legislator shouldn't advocate armed revolt
yorkdispatch.com ^ | 15 June, 2011 | Larry A. Hicks

Posted on 06/17/2011 5:41:55 AM PDT by marktwain

But I'd become really comfortable with state Rep. Scott Perry, R-Dillsburg. He's not my legislator. I've never had a chance to vote for him. But he does represent fellow York countians, and I'd come to respect the way he thought.

I saw him as a hard worker. I saw him as a man with character. And I saw him as someone who had his priorities in order.

Oh, and one more thing -- I saw him as a solid patriot. He was a man who not only cared about Pennsylvania, but the United States, as well.

In case you have forgotten -- I haven't -- Perry served a one-year tour of duty in Iraq with the Pennsylvania National Guard a couple of years ago, while he was an elected legislator in the state General Assembly.

He continued to serve his constituents from Iraq, by computer and whatever other forms of communication he could manage, the best he could.

I admired that.

And I said so.

But now I'm wondering if some of the bricks in Perry's load haven't fallen off the wagon.

Because Perry said something a couple weeks ago that has brought me up short. I've spent two weeks pondering his comment, trying to figure out a way to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But the more I think about it, the more I hear or read Perry's explanation of what he really meant to say, the more second thoughts I'm having.

This is what Perry was reported as having said for a May 30 story in the Allentown Morning Call: "We must be able not only to hunt but to protect ourselves from an overbearing government that does not do the will of the people."

(Excerpt) Read more at yorkdispatch.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; gun; philosophy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
So, why are we supporting the insurgents in Libya?
1 posted on 06/17/2011 5:42:01 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This is a publication in Pennsylvania.


2 posted on 06/17/2011 5:45:26 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Hicks is an insulting, ignorant, arrogant asshat.


3 posted on 06/17/2011 5:49:12 AM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Pennsylvania has always been a hard case when it came to self-defense. The Quakers started out imposing pacifism on everybody ~ which, if you didn't accept that idea, you could be punished.

Right up until the adoption of the Constitution of 1790 NO NON QUAKER could hold public office in that state. That's what that "no religious test" clause is about ~ to make it possible for non-Quakers to run for Congress!

The gentleman's statement in Virginia wouldn't be exceptional. In Pennsylvania it is exceptional.

The solution is to NOT LIVE IN PENNSYLVANIA. They'll just never be right in the head.

4 posted on 06/17/2011 5:50:43 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This guy Hicks is the kind of fellow that would
gladly put the chains on his neighbors.


5 posted on 06/17/2011 5:51:32 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

6 posted on 06/17/2011 5:52:45 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (NO MORE SECOND TERMS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"We must be able not only to hunt but to protect ourselves from an overbearing government that does not do the will of the people."

I want and we need politicians who believe and understand this, otherwise we are subjects.

7 posted on 06/17/2011 5:54:28 AM PDT by NativeSon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The Second Amendment wasn't written to protect our right to hunt. Armed revolt is the People's ultimate defense against an out-of-control government.

I don't believe we're anywhere near the point where armed revolt is necessary, but what do the People do when the government institutions are inhabited and controlled by people who have no respect for the law? What, for example, do we do when the chief enforcer no longer enforces, congress acts as though its powers are unlimited, and judges no longer adjudicate, they legislate?

8 posted on 06/17/2011 5:54:28 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Coming soon...DADT for Christians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
From the article:

But this is 2011. In this country, times have changed, I think. I hope. And even if they haven't, does anyone in his or her right mind think a bunch of citizens with handguns and rifles stand a snowball's chance in Hades against an organized military with the fire power of our government?

I guess the writer wasn't paying attention a few years back when a few Iraqi Insurgents armed with guns and Improvised explosives came perilously close, but for the surge, of driving us out of Iraq. But more to the his point, I think the general consensus is that if their ever arose a tyrannical enough government in the USA that a good portion of the citizenry took up arms against it. Much of the military would side with the patriots or at minimum refuse orders to fire on fellow Americans.

9 posted on 06/17/2011 5:54:45 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“We must be able not only to hunt but to protect ourselves from an overbearing government that does not do the will of the people.”

And what is wrong with that Mr. Hicks? Is it any more incorrect than why we have a first amendment? You are free to run your blather in the local rag because of its constitutional protection which is just as important today as it was in 1775. You see Mr. Hicks, certain rights are inalienable, and as such they transend time. Furthermore, there was no more a guarantee the colonists would defeat the best armed and as superior a fighting force as were the British during which time the idea of gun ownership was believed to be the underpinning of freedom. You are right in one thing Mr. Hicks, defeating as powerful an army as the Executive could muster today with small arms is not achievable but that also assumes the citizen soldiers would follow the orders from a tyranical government...I have faith in their choosing the correct course of action which is to follow legal orders based on our constitution.


10 posted on 06/17/2011 5:56:49 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

brilliant point!
(i’ll have to try that out on some liberal friends...)

and Perry’s statement is remarkable mild compared to “refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots” and others from our Founding Fathers.
They would probably call Perry a wimp.
(and what would they call the average American today?)

“We must be able not only to hunt but to protect ourselves from an overbearing government that does not do the will of the people.”


11 posted on 06/17/2011 5:58:08 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar
does anyone in his or her right mind think a bunch of citizens with handguns and rifles stand a snowball's chance in Hades against an organized military with the fire power of our government? - I am always amused and amazed that this line follows "our gub'mint would never do that" statement, used by tools to explain away the need.

That statement is EXACTLY why we must be armed

12 posted on 06/17/2011 5:58:47 AM PDT by NativeSon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
does anyone in his or her right mind think a bunch of citizens with handguns and rifles stand a snowball's chance in Hades against an organized military with the fire power of our government?

I'm sure glad George Washington didn't feel this way in 1776 :)

13 posted on 06/17/2011 6:02:32 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Legislator shouldn’t advocate armed revolt”

Our founders did. I think they would in 2011, too, or in 2013 if we don’t have a fair and legitimate election November 6th, 2012.


14 posted on 06/17/2011 6:04:17 AM PDT by RoadTest (Organized religion is no substitute for the relationship the living God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Because Perry said something a couple weeks ago that has brought me up short. I've spent two weeks pondering his comment, trying to figure out a way to give him the benefit of the doubt . . . This is what Perry was reported as having said for a May 30 story in the Allentown Morning Call: "We must be able not only to hunt but to protect ourselves from an overbearing government that does not do the will of the people."

What benefit of the doubt? He said exactly what he meant to say and exactly what most real Americans believe. We are not servants of the ruling class. We are free Americans, and the government serves at our pleasure, not us at their command. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was given to us by God and protected in the "Supreme Law of the Land" specifically for the reason given by Perry, not to protect hunting and target shooting. The Constitution is about human rights, including political rights, not about protecting recreation and entertainment.

15 posted on 06/17/2011 6:05:07 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It is a tenet of Natural Law that you have the right to revolution as the ultimate means of throwing-off a government.

The Founders knew that one man, alone, could not cause a revolution, neither could 20 men working together.

This need for a large group of like-minded men to engage in revolution creates a built-in check and balance.


16 posted on 06/17/2011 6:05:24 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Are the pro-oppressive’s goosestepping all over our unalienable rights? I think so. If so it is our “right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”.

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear. These are not light and transient causes.


17 posted on 06/17/2011 6:18:57 AM PDT by PORD (People Of Right & Duty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Your first point is valid.

Your second, not so much. The Founders of this Nation rose up against their King for much less that we are suffering under right now. We are MUCH closer to armed revolt right than we have at any point in over a hundred years...

18 posted on 06/17/2011 6:19:26 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Dead Corpse: “We are MUCH closer to armed revolt right than we have at any point in over a hundred years...”

Perhaps, but another FReeper made the excellent point that armed revolt is really only possible if it’s a popular revolt. In that sense, we are nowhere near the point where a significant minority, like 1/3 or even 1/4, would support armed revolution. I know I wouldn’t. You’re only talking about a very, very tiny minority who would even consider it at this point. Also, there’s always the possibility of a revolt from the left, too. I actually think more of them are ready to resort to violence than us.


19 posted on 06/17/2011 6:28:45 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Coming soon...DADT for Christians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
“Legislator shouldn’t advocate armed revolt”

Our founders did. I think they would in 2011, too, or in 2013 if we don’t have a fair and legitimate election November 6th, 2012.

Every so often it seems a reminder to all around here is a good idea:

18 USC § 2385

20 posted on 06/17/2011 6:33:11 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

We only had 10% actually take up arms against the King. It was closer to 3% at the outset.


21 posted on 06/17/2011 6:42:48 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

10% take up arms? OK. But a significant portion of the rest of society still has to support the cause or at least take no action against it. No offense, but I think you’re delusional if you think 30 million Americans (or even 10 million = 3%) are ready to take up arms against the government at this moment.


22 posted on 06/17/2011 6:47:27 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Coming soon...DADT for Christians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Only around 50% supported breaking off from England. About the same percentages we have today between major parties and about as widely politically divided.

And yes... I do think we have at least 3% who are willing to stand up and restore our Republic.

III%

We are everywhere...

23 posted on 06/17/2011 6:54:13 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: apillar
“Much of the military would side with the patriots or at minimum refuse orders to fire on fellow Americans.”

Depends on how it's done.

Do what the Weather Underground tried doing in the 60’s/70’s with a little tweaking and they wouldn't.

Orchestrate massive race riots throughout the country, then start carrying out terrorist attacks, except instead of domestic terrorist carrying out the attacks like in the 60’s, use foreign terrorist. You then have an act of war against the US.

Military will be on their side.

24 posted on 06/17/2011 7:04:05 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
I don't believe we're anywhere near the point where armed revolt is necessary......

......What, for example, do we do when the chief enforcer no longer enforces, congress acts as though its powers are unlimited, and judges no longer adjudicate, they legislate?

This is called 'Classic Cognitive Dissonance'.

25 posted on 06/17/2011 7:10:59 AM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them. -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; Tax-chick

Did you omit the first part of the article, or is this guy such a mental giant that he begins the first sentence in an article with “But”? (Technically, you’re never supposed to begin ANY sentence with “But”, but...)


26 posted on 06/17/2011 7:11:19 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Not really cognitive dissonance, because we still have other tools short of armed revolt for fixing the listed problems. Armed revolt is the last resort of a population with no other hope of retaining (or restoring) freedom. I again submit we’re nowhere near even 3% who are ready to take up arms. That’s pretty much self evident, because there’s no armed revolt going on.


27 posted on 06/17/2011 7:20:53 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Coming soon...DADT for Christians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The comments following Hick's newspaper article are UNANIMOUSLY in accord with FReepers’ on this thread. Good on 'em!
28 posted on 06/17/2011 7:21:00 AM PDT by shove_it (just undo it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Not really cognitive dissonance, because we still have other tools short of armed revolt for fixing the listed problems. Armed revolt is the last resort of a population with no other hope of retaining (or restoring) freedom.

I don't disagree.

29 posted on 06/17/2011 7:23:45 AM PDT by Lazamataz (First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them. -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Not really cognitive dissonance, because we still have other tools short of armed revolt for fixing the listed problems.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to current events, but let's catch you up with the 40 years of government expansion and the concomitant reduction in our freedom and personal liberty.

For every battle we win, they seem to win three. Look at the rampant ballot irregularities across the Country, look at the idiotic rulings by activist judges, look at the MSM's complete abdication of their impartial status converting instead to little more than a Socialist mouthpeice.

Soap, Ballot, and Jury boxes are checked. Whether you are willing to recognize it or not...

30 posted on 06/17/2011 7:26:27 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I think I can say, with confidence, that Larry Hicks sits down to pee.


31 posted on 06/17/2011 7:32:49 AM PDT by Sloth (If a tax cut constitutes "spending" then every time I don't rob a bank should count as a "desposit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar

You don’t have to shoot all of them, just the right ones. Why can’t they get that?


32 posted on 06/17/2011 7:34:22 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Did you omit the first part of the article

Yes, it is an excerpt.

33 posted on 06/17/2011 7:44:45 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

Libs hate this idea because they inherently envision THEMSELVES as the ones governing against the will of the people (because they know better).


34 posted on 06/17/2011 7:48:28 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Oh, OK, then I revise my estimate of the guy’s IQ from 80 to 85.


35 posted on 06/17/2011 7:50:04 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

They get that. They also understand that their ilk ARE “the right ones” to shoot.


36 posted on 06/17/2011 7:51:06 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
10% take up arms? OK. But a significant portion of the rest of society still has to support the cause or at least take no action against it. No offense, but I think you’re delusional if you think 30 million Americans (or even 10 million = 3%) are ready to take up arms against the government at this moment.

I can only speak for myself, in which case you would need to revise that to 29,999,999 and 9,999,999 respectively.
37 posted on 06/17/2011 8:02:42 AM PDT by domeika
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Did you omit the first part of the article, or is this guy such a mental giant ...

Both. The OP cut off a few lines at the beginning, and the writer can't put a clear sentence together.

38 posted on 06/17/2011 8:20:33 AM PDT by Tax-chick (One step ahead of the jailer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: domeika

domeika: “I can only speak for myself, in which case you would need to revise that to 29,999,999 and 9,999,999 respectively.”

Yeah, that’s why I read every day about the armed struggle. It’s not happening. Things would have to get a whole lot worse, like millions of Americans starving. You think a number of people are ready to take up arms over Obamacare, gay marriage, EPA greenhouse gas regulation, judicial activism, abortion, etc? Not bloody likely.


39 posted on 06/17/2011 8:22:58 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Coming soon...DADT for Christians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: domeika

BTW, I reiterate my earlier point that the left is far more likely to engage in violence based on history and current events.


40 posted on 06/17/2011 8:24:22 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Coming soon...DADT for Christians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

First, this assclown Hicks is a liar. He’s the small-town newspaper version of one of those Democrat “seminar callers” who call Rush Limbaugh and think they’re being sneaky. You know - - “I’ve been a Republican all my life, but now...”. Listeners from coast to coast just chuckle and roll their eyes.

Second, Hicks’ opinion of his readers betrays the arrogance typical of most liberals. Hicks assumes that his readers are easily fooled and woefully ignorant of the primary purpose of the Second Amendment which was, of course, to preserve for the people their inalienable right to bear arms and defend themselves against a possible future tyrannical government. What... does Hicks really believe that his readers are so stupid they think the Second Amendment is there because the framers thought the people needed to rest assured that they could always hunt and shoot targets and stop muggers?

Hicks’ insulting opinion of his own readers ensures that he can forget any dreams of writing for a big city Democrat publication anytime soon. Ha! Or maybe not! He might be a perfect fit for a dying laughingstock like the New York Times.


41 posted on 06/17/2011 8:24:22 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Technically, you’re never supposed to begin or end ANY sentence with “But”, but...)


42 posted on 06/17/2011 8:51:06 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing Islam into America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

Now, you’re thinking the way I do.


43 posted on 06/17/2011 8:53:17 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing Islam into America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

>>Hicks assumes that his readers are easily fooled and woefully ignorant of the primary purpose of the Second Amendment which was, of course, to preserve for the people their inalienable right to bear arms and defend themselves against a possible future tyrannical government. <<

I doubt if 10% of America knows the primary purpose of the Second Amendment.


44 posted on 06/17/2011 8:58:58 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing Islam into America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free; All
From the article:

But this is 2011. In this country, times have changed , I think. I hope. And even if they haven't, does anyone in his or her right mind think a bunch of citizens with handguns and rifles stand a snowball's chance in Hades against an organized military with the fire power of our government?

Times have changed, really?
So we no longer face the danger of an oppressive government?

And we don’t have a chance? So does that mean we have no choice but to knuckle under to an oppressive government? That said oppressive government can do whatever in Hades it wants to without restraint?

Sounds wonderful.

45 posted on 06/17/2011 9:11:56 AM PDT by BerserkPatriot (There are no 1st Amendment rights without 2nd Amendment Rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The author of this tripe should be ashamed of HIMself. He obviously has never really studied American history. He does not understand how freedom is obtained and protected. Human nature doesn't chance over the ages. We need to be ready to protect our liberty just as in previous centuries. Here are some quotes he should familiarize himself with:

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
- George Washington

“If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
Samuel Adams
...
My experience in public concerns and the observation of a life somewhat advanced confirm the opinions long since imbibed by me, that the destruction of our State governments or the annihilation of their control over the local concerns of the people would lead directly to revolution and anarchy, and finally to despotism and military domination.” - PRESIDENT ANDREW JACKSON, SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1833

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and passed on ... or we will spend our sunset years telling our children's children what it was like in the United States when men were free.”
– Ronald Reagan

“In the larger sense, however, the personal ownership of firearms is only secondarily a matter of defense against the criminal. Note the following from Thomas Jefferson: The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government. That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants.”
- Jeff Cooper

“A free people ought to be armed.”
- George Washington

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty's teeth.”
- George Washington

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
- William Pitt

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
- Richard Henry Lee

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
- Richard Henry Lee

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”
-Jeff Cooper

“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”
– General Douglas MacArthurSee More

46 posted on 06/17/2011 9:12:02 AM PDT by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

So is he arguing that the Government should be disarmed before it becomes oppressive?


47 posted on 06/17/2011 9:14:31 AM PDT by BerserkPatriot (There are no 1st Amendment rights without 2nd Amendment Rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; Tax-chick

Hey, I had an ellipsis!


48 posted on 06/17/2011 9:19:53 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
I doubt if 10% of America knows the primary purpose of the Second Amendment.

Are you saying it's not for deer hunting???

49 posted on 06/17/2011 9:21:01 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Only one? I sometimes have several in a brief period of time. The cure is to have a small Restorative Beverage and lie down.


50 posted on 06/17/2011 9:22:23 AM PDT by Tax-chick (One step ahead of the jailer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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