Posted on 01/10/2013 9:33:35 AM PST by 7thson
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
A powerful piece by Judge Napolitano, he’s exactly right.
Of course once the anti gunners eliminate the real reason for the 2nd, the PETA groups will deny hunters the “right” to shoot “defenseless” animals.
It's the One-Two punch to total gun elimination from private citizens.
Our country cannot survive the divide created by the left. Voting doesn’t work and has led to the $hit sandwich that is being served up to us.
When do the conservative masses rise up instead of letting this happen?
The gloves need to come off. Time for subtlety is long gone. We need a knock out plan, no matter what it takes.
Progressives are our enemy...
Their goal is a total ban on firearms. ANYTHING we compromise on is a step in that direction. Its always more and more strict and never for more freedom.
The state of Connecticut already has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. These laws do not work to reduce violence.
The judge is correct. “The United States of America was created by the people who rose up against their standing oppressive government, and shot the bastards!”
I stole that from a Freeper a few years ago.
Yep, the vast majority of progressives are Marxists and Communists, they’re definitely the enemy.
A very eloquent piece.
“The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.”
“A very eloquent piece.”
Indeed. Another excerpt:
“The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.”
Why doesn’t someone pay the fare for Judge Napolitano to challenge Andrew Cuomo to an open debate on this?
I always wonder why hunting comes up first when politicians try to mollify us, and even in SCOTUS rulings. Before home defense, it would seem. Is it just because it’s the least controversial aspect? I wouldn’t think that’d be enough; they don’t bring up chatting over afternoon tea during free speech controversies. Then again, the specter of banning all speech never seems to arise.
Hunters must really turn out for the polls.
I submit this question for consideration, “How many enemies, foreign or domestic, criminals and/or tyrants may I shoot before I must reload and how rapidly can I shoot them?”
I say that there should be no limit other than that of the military pattern firearm technology that I now possess.
AR15’s, etc. = “Anti-Tyrant Rifles”
I guess if Obama doesn’t approve of an armed citizenry, he can go back to Kenya.
Cuomo would never go for it, he's too chicken. OTOH, he might be stupid enough to think it's Janet Napolitano who wants a debate, so who knows?
As usual, the judge succinctly sums it up.
As usual, the judge succinctly sums it up.
I submit that the time for another “rising up” has been reached.
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.