People tach your self, your children, and your friends!
How many people really believe in unalienable rights? How many people really believe in freedom? Not many. Even among those who call themselves pro-freedom, many still have some residue of the slave mentality.
Let’s use the example of the right of self-defense, which is the basis for the right to possess weapons, such as firearms (as acknowledged in the Second Amendment). Even among gun owners, how many people really consider self-defense a “right”? Almost all gun owners would say they believe it’s a right, but do they really? Here is a test: If owning a firearm were “illegal,” would you still have the right to do it? Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed via the proper procedures for amending the Constitution. And suppose the feds and all the states then outlawed private gun ownership entirely. Would you still have the right to be armed?
Yes, you would. And at this point, I expect most gun owners would say the same, although the discussion would be making some of them start to feel a bit nervous. You see, people have been so indoctrinated into viewing politician commands as some morally binding gospel, which they call “law,” that they feel uncomfortable even discussing the concept of violating such so-called “law” in order to protect individual rights.
Let’s go one step further. If the Second Amendment were repealed, and private gun ownership were outlawed, and the police showed up at your house to take yours, would you have the right to use any means necessary to stop them? Would you have the right to start gunning down “law enforcers” if they tried to disarm you? Quite a few gun owners (including me) would still say, “Hell, yes, I would!” But others would hesitate and squirm. And that’s where someone’s real principles can be seen. If you believe in individual rights, then you have to believe that nothing — no election, no legislation, nothing — can take them away. (That’s what “unalienable” means.) As Jefferson explained in the Declaration of Independence, if those calling themselves “government” decide to violate your rights, you have every right — the duty, even — to resist, including with deadly force, if necessary.
Of course, resisting tyranny is almost always hazardous, and you may have to choose which battles to fight. But the principle remains: if you have a “right” to do something, then, by definition, you don’t ever have an obligation to let anyone interfere with your exercise of that right. And if shooting a cop in the head is required to preserve your rights, you are perfectly justified in doing so.
So now how many people are uncomfortable with the discussion? Probably quite a few: all the people who do not really believe in unalienable rights. Let’s make it even a bit less comfortable: If some “government” thug tries to forcibly stop you from speaking your mind, do you have the right to forcibly resist his efforts, even if that requires killing him? Yep. And if you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, do you have the right to use force — deadly force, if necessary — to stop any “law enforcer” who tries to search you or your house without a warrant and without just cause? Yep.
A “right” that requires “government” permission is not a right, but a government-granted privilege. A “right” that legislation can negate is not a right. And yet most of the pro-freedom movement goes to great lengths to ask those in “government” to please not violate our rights. They lobby for legislation protecting their rights, or lobby against legislation that will infringe on their rights. They try to elect people who will preserve their rights, or at least not violate them even more than before. In other words, they beg for their freedom, as if they need the permission of tyrants to be free.
Why? If you have rights, why would ever ask those who don’t respect those rights to give you their blessing? Would you ask a carjacker if he would please refrain from stealing your car? How well would that work? Would you try to elect a new carjacker for your neighborhood, who will be nicer? Or would you shoot the bastard?
Barack Hussein Obama, Firearms Salesman of the Year, 2008Every time the American tyrants push some new totalitarian stunt and wage some new attack on your rights — which is happening at an almost incomprehensible rate these days — do something about it. No, I don’t mean writing to “your” congressman. (“You” have a congressman about as much as “you” can have a carjacker.) And I don’t mean voting. If you want to do something that the tyrants will actually notice and actually care about, every time they take a step towards totalitarianism, go buy another gun, or more ammo, or a couple of high-capacity clips. Go to the range a few more times. Make sure you have the equipment and the skills necessary to enforce your rights yourself.
The politicians know they can completely ignore all the letter-writing campaigns, petitions, and other examples of peasants pathetically begging their masters to be nice. But I’ll tell you one thing they are not ignoring — one thing they did notice — was the huge number of people who have been buying guns and ammunition since Barack O’Stalin won the election. Violence is the only language “authority” ever speaks, and in the end, is the only language it understands. Or, as Patrick Henry put it …
“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 inevitably ruined.”
