Running Gator Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.63 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2017 According to Judge Andrew Napolitano this is why we have the second amendment... Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical! So, my question is this, are statements like this partially to blame for what happened last week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyKay Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 385 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 7,692 Content Per Day: 1.91 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2017 32 minutes ago, Running Gator said: According to Judge Andrew Napolitano this is why we have the second amendment... Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical! So, my question is this, are statements like this partially to blame for what happened last week? Maybe. If that was what the person was thinking at the time of the shooting. But who knows what goes on in someone's head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,925 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted June 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Running Gator said: According to Judge Andrew Napolitano this is why we have the second amendment... Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical! So, my question is this, are statements like this partially to blame for what happened last week? Though perhaps his statement grates on our 2017 ears, the judge is essentially correct. And the 1st Amendment gives him the right to say it. 'Tyrannical' is a pretty high bar, however. For instance, when I think of tyrannical, I think of N. Korea or Cuba. Though flawed in many ways, our government isn't even close to those - yet. If one is of that mindset to the point of taking up arms against 'the government', then they best be prepared to pay the consequences. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.06 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: Though perhaps his statement grates on our 2017 ears, the judge is essentially correct. And the 1st Amendment gives him the right to say it. 'Tyrannical' is a pretty high bar, however. For instance, when I think of tyrannical, I think of N. Korea or Cuba. Though flawed in many ways, our government isn't even close to those - yet. If one is of that mindset to the point of taking up arms against 'the government', then they best be prepared to pay the consequences. Blessings, -Ed Someone who wants to do that is in the same group of thinkers as this Hodgekinson guy who shot up the baseball practice. We have the right to DEFEND ourselves against our government; not the right to ATTACK the government. The judge was, indeed, correct in what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.63 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, MorningGlory said: Someone who wants to do that is in the same group of thinkers as this Hodgekinson guy who shot up the baseball practice. We have the right to DEFEND ourselves against our government; not the right to ATTACK the government. The judge was, indeed, correct in what he said. The judge made no distinction between attacking and defending in his statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,925 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted June 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, Running Gator said: The judge made no distinction between attacking and defending in his statement 2013 article in the Washington Times. NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer Quote 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. Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with. Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few? Blessings, Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,738 Content Per Day: 2.44 Reputation: 8,551 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted June 18, 2017 22 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: Though perhaps his statement grates on our 2017 ears, the judge is essentially correct. And the 1st Amendment gives him the right to say it. 'Tyrannical' is a pretty high bar, however. For instance, when I think of tyrannical, I think of N. Korea or Cuba. Though flawed in many ways, our government isn't even close to those - yet. If one is of that mindset to the point of taking up arms against 'the government', then they best be prepared to pay the consequences. Blessings, -Ed Well said. And that is what most second amendment people don't actually think about. Yes, the second amendment was put in place in case we need to shoot at the government, but the flip side is if they shoot at the government the government will shoot back, and the "legality" of it will be entirely dependent on who wins. In the case if the revolutionary war we won, we shot at the government, and we won. In the case of the civil war the south shot at the government, and lost. In both cases the consequences were death, and heartache, but it was less so in the revolutionary war because we won, the actions were "justified" while in the civil war the Confederacy was objectified because they lost. If one feels that going head to head with the government, regardless of the reason they need to realize there will be consequences, win or lose and they'd better be willing to face them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut- Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Running Gator said: According to Judge Andrew Napolitano this is why we have the second amendment... Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical! So, my question is this, are statements like this partially to blame for what happened last week? His statement is absolutely correct. Could this have been the mindset of the individual from last week? It very well may have been. As others have pointed out, making a decision to go to war with the government has consequences, particularly if you lose. The founders understood very well that if they had lost the Revolution they would have been executed for treason. The same as the Confederacy realized if they lost the Civil War there would be consequences as well, and they too expected to be executed in the event they lost. Fortunately for them, Lincoln was not a tyrant and allowed the leadership to relocate and the common soldier to return to their homes. I wouldn't expect that kind of grace to be extended today. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 3 hours ago, Running Gator said: According to Judge Andrew Napolitano this is why we have the second amendment... Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical! So, my question is this, are statements like this partially to blame for what happened last week? The judge is correct, but it has nothing to do with the shooting last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2017 3 hours ago, Running Gator said: According to Judge Andrew Napolitano this is why we have the second amendment... Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical! So, my question is this, are statements like this partially to blame for what happened last week? He was giving what basically equates to a learned judicial opinion on the reason the founders included the second amendment. This is not the same thing as calling for the deaths of governmental officials. The 18th century usage of the word tyranny wouldve definitively been in reference to the establishment of a monarchy or a dictatorship. I would go so far as to say that shooting at peacefully, freely, and legally elected members of congress simply because of a disagreement with their political policies is entirely antithetical to the idea that the founders wouldve been attempting to get across with the above understanding of the second amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts