moonbattery logo

Jan 15 2013

A Question Holds the Answer

The wise Walter Williams asks a single question that should settle the gun debate:

“Are we under any less a threat of tyranny from Washington than we were in 1787?”

Obviously, the threat of tyranny has increased infinitely since the long-lost days when the federal government was small and presided over by great men whose objective was the advancement of liberty. Consequently, we need the Second Amendment more now than ever. Ominous threats of executive orders to restrict it prove that the day the Founding Fathers prepared us for has come.

Another wise quote:

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
—Thomas Jefferson

Hopefully we still have enough character to make use of the tools Jefferson and his colleagues left for us.

On a tip from Varla.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on Facebook


  • Son of Taz

    Ask this question of New York state residents tonight.

    Their village idiot governor Mario Coo-Mo signed a very restrictive set of gun laws and is he so proud! Liberals can go home and pleasure themselves tonight without guilt because they’ve made NY safer.

    That is until the next psycho criminal kills a bunch of people with a weapon that’s not a firearm.

  • Stephan The Original

    Sorry, but I think that Jefferson quote is not real. Just sayin’

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    Son of Taz
    From your link
    For Cuomo, who is eyeing a potential 2016 presidential run, the tough gun package gives him another signature achievement less than two years after winning passage of a bill to legalize gay marriage.

    “It’s a big plus in the shadow campaign already being waged for 2016,” said University of Virginia political expert Larry Sabato.

    The bill moved so fast, some mistakes were made and will have to be corrected in separate legislation in the weeks ahead, lawmakers acknowledge. One problem: Police agencies were not exempted from the restrictions on bullets.

    His zeal to punish legal firearm owners and effectively neutering NY police departments will play BIG in Democrapt primary states like Texas, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin
    Good luck with that.

  • Tim form TK

    “The new state law expands the definition of banned weapons to include semiautomatic pistols and rifles with at least one military-style feature.”

    As a “pistol grip” is cited as a “military style” feature, behold the newest in our line of assault weapons:

    http://www.airguns.net/reviews_anschutz2002.php.

    However, cut off the bayonet lug and use a 5 round clip and a Garand isn’t (or I suppose if you chamber one that only leaves seven in the standard clip and is therefore legal).

    Socialists – is there anything they don’t know ?

  • Highway Hospital Student

    All you need to know about gun control:

    http://www.voy.com/216669/31590.html

  • Tim from TK

    “Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.”

    “If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine…”

    One wonders how they plan to find out if the luckless owners have eight or more bullets in a magazine if said magazines are safely locked away as they are supposed to be by the new Soviet laws.

  • Highway Hospital Student

    This man lived in Warsaw.

    He is surrendering his gun to the National Socialists.

    He would die in the next 15 minutes.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1994-054-30%2C_Warschauer_Aufstand%2C_polnischer_Soldat.jpg

  • modd kenwood

    Walter Williams: an Uncle Tom in the eyes of the left

  • Ummah Gummah

    .

    That “Stop the Madness” howl by the boy cumo should make great fodder for anyone he may run against. Just putting it out there.. I don’t want to see this dangerous Long Island inbred from Mattituck to succeed Dumbo-ears.. so I offer material to the opposition.

    What if cumo runs against donut-boy from across the Hudson?

    What will voter turnout be like then?

    Jesus, people.. can’t you see why a Third Party is desperately needed?!

    .

  • Ummah Gummah

    Highway Hospital Student says:
    January 15, 2013 at 8:27 pm
    This man lived in Warsaw.

    He is surrendering his gun to the National Socialists.

    He would die in the next 15 minutes.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1994-054-30%2C_Warschauer_Aufstand%2C_polnischer_Soldat.jpg

    If you know they’re gonna kill you.. might as well take a few of ‘em with you.. but then, he probably didn’t know.

    .

  • Momster

    “Hopefully we still have enough character to make use of the tools Jefferson and his colleagues left for us.”

    Hopefully, if American military personnel are ordered to take aim against American citizens defending the constitution, they will remember their own pledges to defend the constitution and to obey all LAWFUL orders.

  • Momster

    After all, guns can be fired in the direction from which the shooter senses danger. Is the danger to the constitution seated in Washington?

  • Zachriel

    “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

    Um, not a documented quote, and doesn’t sound like Jefferson’s diction.
    http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation

  • Zachriel

    Momster: Hopefully, if American military personnel are ordered to take aim against American citizens defending the constitution, they will remember their own pledges to defend the constitution and to obey all LAWFUL orders.

    That’s the reason there are courts, to determine whether enacted laws or orders are consistent with the Constitution, and whether particular acts are unlawful under valid laws.

    Momster: After all, guns can be fired in the direction from which the shooter senses danger. Is the danger to the constitution seated in Washington?

    Shooting at ‘Washington’ would be a crime by any reasonable measure.

  • M.Wilson

    There’s a reason why anybody who loves Freedom will have to draw the line at the Second Amendment.

    So long as we have arms, we have the power to resist any attempt at Tyranny. The buck stops with us, and we have the power to say “this will go no further, save over my dead body.”

    To those who think it irrational to draw this line at the prohibition of arms when the other trappings of a republic are supposedly in place, what can you do if these trappings are thrown off and your republic replaced by dictatorship if your arms have already been taken? Will you rebel with pitchforks? Or will you, having been deprived of your only effective means to resist, be herded like sheep to the slaughter?

    It is clear that any action to strip us of our arms must be resisted, no matter how benevolent the government at the moment is or claims to be. Our arms are the only assurance we have of such ostensible benevolence being prolonged, without them we are mere serfs, slaves to the whims of this government and any future government that may replace it, regardless of how vile these whims may turn.

    To lose our arms is not a mere flesh wound, but a mortal blow to liberty that would ensure its inevitable death at the hands of tyrants.

  • Momster

    Thank you, M. Wilson, for providing the answer to Zachriel that I am obviously too inarticulate to voice so eloquently.

  • Zachriel

    M.Wilson: So long as we have arms, we have the power to resist any attempt at Tyranny. The buck stops with us, and we have the power to say “this will go no further, save over my dead body.”

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

  • M.Wilson

    If you consider being stripped of arms “light and transient.”

    Even if you really do though, just what do you plan to do when when your chains no longer sit lightly upon you if you have already surrendered your arms? No matter how unnecessary taking up arms may seem now, do you really want to find yourself bereft of them when the necessity at last presents itself? Even if the evils you toil under are sufferable now, should the time come that they become insufferable do you really want to find that you have already surrendered your only means of throwing them off?

    It is better to have our guns and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

  • Zachriel

    M.Wilson: Even if you really do though, just what do you plan to do when when your chains no longer sit lightly upon you if you have already surrendered your arms?

    The U.S. has a constitution, regular elections, laws, courts of appeal, even an amendment process. The last time the United States went to war with itself, it resulted in the bloodiest war in history. You might be better off trying to work within the democratic process.

  • Zachriel

    M.Wilson: If you consider being stripped of arms “light and transient.”

    Is there a realistic proposal to strip you of your arms?

  • Belfast

    “as to counsel’s argument of ‘irresistible impulse’ I as myself – would he have given into this irresistible impulse if the lady had been pointing a .38 at him?”

  • Belfast

    “ask” not “as”

  • M.Wilson

    You don’t seem to understand the basic principle involved here. In the event that the Constitution is discarded, elections canceled or rigged, and the courts transformed into mockeries of justice, how would you resist if you had surrendered your arms while all these things were still intact? So what if it isn’t going to happen in your lifetime, what about your children? Your grandchildren? Would you want to tell some future generation, faced with some tyranny that you could not foresee, that they are doomed to be led like sheep to the slaughter because you surrendered your right to bear arms in exchange for empty promises? Or perhaps, threatened with jail time or worse, that you were too afraid to make that final stand for liberty when all other methods had failed?

    And don’t go pretending that a single-shot, .22 peashooter would be sufficient to declare our “right to bear arms” intact, or that the people behind the “gun control” push have any intention of letting us keep even that in the long run. What weapons we still hold we only have because we have fought tooth and nail from the smallest city hall to the halls of Congress to keep them. It’s a given that we should work within the law as much as possible, but should it fail, and should the government come in force to take away the last of our weapons some time in the distant future, would you have us surrender them without a fight?

    It’s quite simple really. A true patriot must oppose “gun control” laws at every turn, and if they pass, refuse to comply with or enforce them. If at that point the government decides to crush this fundamental liberty under its boots? Well, I don’t see why we should make that easy for them either.

  • Zachriel

    M.Wilson: You don’t seem to understand the basic principle involved here. In the event that the Constitution is discarded, elections canceled or rigged, and the courts transformed into mockeries of justice, how would you resist if you had surrendered your arms while all these things were still intact?

    You’re going to need artillery.

    In any case, the fundamental guarantee of liberty are the institutions of democracy, not the paranoia of the few. You seem to think the Constitution is in danger of being discarded, yet it is the violent paranoia expressed on this thread which seem the biggest threat to constitutional government.

  • M.Wilson

    And what guarantees the institutions? To quote a famous gun control advocate, “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.”

    So long as guns reside in the hands of the people, they retain the power to keep the institutions of democracy intact so that they don’t have to resort to violence. Without arms, your vote means nothing. After all, if your rulers decide to completely ignore the results of your vote and do whatever they want, what are you going to do about it?

    Let me be clear: elected officials do not honor the results of elections because it’s the right thing to do. “The right thing to do” is never a factor in any decision a politician makes, as you should be painfully aware by now. They abide by the results of elections because if they don’t, there would be armed riots and possibly a full blown rebellion across the country. How long would your precious elections last if they no longer had to worry about this?

  • Zachriel

    M.Wilson: So long as guns reside in the hands of the people, they retain the power to keep the institutions of democracy intact so that they don’t have to resort to violence. Without arms, your vote means nothing.

    That suggests an ignorance of how democratic institutions persist. They persist because of the complex network of power distributed and balanced throughout society, federal, state, local, legislative, executive, judicial, political parties, citizen groups, corporations, property rights, and individual liberties. That includes those who argue for the right to bear arms; but like all rights, there are reasonable limitations, and it is important to recognize those reasonable limitations.

    M.Wilson: After all, if your rulers decide to completely ignore the results of your vote and do whatever they want, what are you going to do about it?

    And that suggests an exaggerated belief in the power of individual arms to protect liberty. You’ll still need artillery, as well as much larger numbers of people willing to resist with force than are evident today. Most people, despite moments of frustration, realize that they have to work through the system of checks and balances. Exaggerating the threat and the means undermines that balance.

    M.Wilson: They abide by the results of elections because if they don’t, there would be armed riots and possibly a full blown rebellion across the country.

    They abide by the results of elections because of the networks of social institutions that bind them.

    Certainly there are times when resort to armed resistance is necessary, but there is little indication that the American Republic is in danger of degenerating into fascism. Everything in the world is a balance. Violent paranoia seems more of a threat to liberty than minimal restrictions on firearms.

  • M.Wilson

    You continue to persist in your fundamentally flawed premise that it’s OK to surrender our arms because our government isn’t a dictatorship at the moment.

    That’s like saying we could have safely dismantled our nukes during the Cold War because the Soviets weren’t marching through our streets at the time, and stating that anyone who wanted to keep our nuclear arsenal in a state of readiness was a violent whackjob who wanted to push the big red button right that moment. You see, an armed citizenry is a deterrent. Just like Mutually Assured Destruction, peace and civility are maintained because neither side feels it can endure a confrontation.

    You have admitted yourself, there are times when resorting to arms is necessary. So once again I ask you: would you like to find yourself without arms when that time comes?

    As for “minimal restrictions”, ask Britain, Canada, and Australia how “minimal” these restrictions turn out to be once you start accepting them. Additionally note that ever since, especially in Britain and Australia where they are further along in the agenda, their governments have had less and less concern for the voice of the people. It’s only a matter of time for them. It won’t happen all at once, it will continue as it has: a little bit here, a little bit there. Thousands upon thousands of “minimal restrictions” introduced a little at a time, until one day they discover that they have been enslaved, and when the desire finally kindles within them to rise up they discover that they have long ago surrendered the means to do so.

  • Zachriel

    M.Wilson: You continue to persist in your fundamentally flawed premise that it’s OK to surrender our arms because our government isn’t a dictatorship at the moment.

    We did answer this point saying, “Certainly there are times when resort to armed resistance is necessary…” Our points were as follows:

    1. You exaggerate the effectiveness of simple firearms to protect liberty.
    2. You ignore the actual source of the stability of democratic governance.
    3. Reasonable restrictions can balance the need for the right to bear arms and the security needs of society.
    4. Armed paranoia can itself be a threat to liberty.

    M.Wilson: As for “minimal restrictions”, ask Britain, Canada, and Australia how “minimal” these restrictions turn out to be once you start accepting them.

    22% of Canadians households possess at least one firearm.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial