From A Reader

Posted on February 26, 2013 | 18 Comments

Bingo.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to From A Reader

Hognutz | February 26, 2013 at 14:14 |

Beautiful!
eman | February 26, 2013 at 14:42 |

I think this is fantastic, thank you. Need some T-shirts to spread the word…
holmgang | February 26, 2013 at 16:04 |

Government and man can take your life and property. But no one can take your rights away–they can only violate those rights.
KPN 3% | February 26, 2013 at 16:13 |

That just about sums it all up.
2ndSecuresTheRest | February 26, 2013 at 18:19 |

The correct answer as to how many rounds are needed for self-defense is ‘as many as it takes’.

Now get off of my lawn.
B Woodman | February 26, 2013 at 21:09 |

Even my wife liked this one.
Pat Hines | February 26, 2013 at 21:16 |

Contrary to what is stated often, rights are absolute. Freedom of speech is an absolute, use to cause damages, pay to make the damages whole again. That in no way is a limitation upon the right.

Everyone has heard the “fire in the crowded theater” meme. That was first used in court, as far as I know, to convict people who were advising men to not register for the draft for World War One. All they did was hand out leaflets, the Wilson junta didn’t like that, so set the full force of the US government against them and they were convicted. The US Supreme Court used the case to establish a precedent for rights limitation despite the fact that there are no limitations with regard to rights.

Our right to self defense with any weapon is facing the same sort of attack today, the US Supreme court has set up the opportunity to rule that our right can be limited, even though the language of the Second Amendment protects self defense rights to a much higher level than the First Amendment. The Second Amendment expressly demands that the US government act to protect the right from ANY infringement of any kind.

Anything less is unacceptable.
Anonymous | February 26, 2013 at 21:29 |

http://t.co/uaXe3az7EO

Heads up to Colorado residents.
witness10mm | February 26, 2013 at 22:35 |

Obama has just released thousands of illegals from deportation camps, including several hundred Haitians due to be deported because of criminal backgrounds. See: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/26/obamas-first-sequester-move-releasing-waves-of-illegal-immigrants-from-detention-centers/ ) Well, I guess he wants to see if the White boys still have got courage. Holder says we are cowards. Guess we will find out soon.
- DAN III | February 28, 2013 at 05:50 |
  
  One can thank soetoro-obamas actions on the Washington political elite, the SCOTUS, the MSM and hundreds of millions of Americans who allowed this marxist piece of garbage to ever be nominated for POTUS let alone elected. The bastard (literally) has NEVER met Art 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. He is a fake, fraud, usurper. He is NOT my POTUS.
mjburns81@gmail.com | February 26, 2013 at 23:36 |

I believe our present problem with the U.S. is hopefully, just a passing disease. That we will come up with a permanent cure for it. We have the means of a cure, so if it doesn’t just fade away. Otherwise our ability to defend ourselves against such ailments will rid us of the problem and those who are spreading it.
Glen | February 27, 2013 at 06:59 |

When amnesty passes both working- and middle-class Americans of European gentile persuasion can kiss both their do-nothing “Republican” politics and gun rights goodbye.

“Gun Nuts Really Need To Get In The Immigration Fight, Because Immigrants Don’t Believe In The Second Amendment”

http://www.vdare.com/posts/gun-nuts-really-need-to-get-in-the-immigration-fight-because-immigrants-dont-believe-in-the-se

“Opinion: Latinos may lead the way to gun control in the future”

http://nbclatino.com/2012/07/22/opinion-latinos-may-lead-the-way-to-gun-control-in-the-futur/

“Riordanism Won’t Work – But Proves Hispanic Conservatism A Myth”

http://www.vdare.com/articles/riordanism-wont-work-but-proves-hispanic-conservatism-a-myth

Much more on Latino’s “cultural conservatism” [NOT] and “support for the second amendment” [NOT] may be found at http://www.vdare.com
- Grenadier1 | February 27, 2013 at 09:27 |
  
  Anyone looking at Latinos and trying to prescribe political ideology to them is treading on thin ice. One way or the other. Keep in mind that Latinos come form countries where utter contempt for the government is common place. For many that means socialist ideas are attractive to “fix” things. For others it means to just completely disregard the government and do what you want right or wrong.
  - Glen | February 27, 2013 at 20:31 |
    
    Latinos overwhelmingly conform to the “gibs me dat” ethos. The exceptions are not the rule and these exceptions are predominantly, if not entirely, of European descent. Of course this pisses off Latinos and white dudes attached to all that “spicy” Latina poontang or cheap Mexican labor.
    
    “Pro-Immigration Congressional Republicans Do Not Perform Better Among Latino Voters”
    
    http://cis.org/sites/default/files/hawley-latino-voters.pdf
    
    Latinos are not allies because some of us think we know a few good’uns. In warfare, be it hot (high intensity) or political (low-intensity), discovering exceptions through character confirmation will get one killed rather quickly. That philosophy is exactly why we’re in the fix that we’re in.
ghostsniper | February 27, 2013 at 09:41 |

“And my rights do not come from the president, congress or anyone other than god himself.”
====================

I’ll skip over the silly god delusion for the moment.
Why do rights have to *come* from somewhere?
Does anyone ask where gravity comes from?
Or air? Or water? Or the universe?

I reject the entire notion that I must prove and defend my rights.
My rights exists and are inviolate as is gravity, air, water and the universe.

An entity that attacks my rights does so AFTER surrendering his rights first.
He cannot retain his own rights while attacking or threatening mine.

Notice how this dovetails with the reality of an entity attacking me in person.
When he does that he FIRST surrenders his own safety.
How can it be any other way?
It cannot.

It may difficult or impossible to rectify the threat from a geographical location a long distance from you – don’t waste much time pondering this.

When the entity comes to threaten or attack you or your rights you have the right and the moral obligation to negate that threat or attack.

Onward.
- oughtsix | February 27, 2013 at 23:23 |
  
  GS, you and I have had our differences over time here in these pages but that’s pretty damned good, right there.
  
  Very well said. Clear, concise and inarguable.
Joe | February 27, 2013 at 11:19 |

Thanks for the heads up Anon. I will pass it on to my “advanced” fellows. Going out on a limb here; for the record though I don’t own an AR or variant. My rifle is bolt action, and in it’s day was a Battle Rifle. I use it to
hunt for meat and to train my family. I know it front and back and inside out. It is the tool for which I have chosen to protect my family, property and neighbors. I believe that every man and woman has the right to choose that tool themselves and that as long and the government rules by force and not by Natural Law, we as individuals have every right to defend ourselves by any means necessary.
Pingback: Moonbattery » Open Thread