The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.
A government of laws and not of men.
John Adams
(1735-1826)
Second President of the United States
The Life and Works of John Adams (1851)
[And by necessity the same applies to the defenders of the tyrant and the thugs who enforce the orders of the tyrant. And to do this the people of the nation need the tools to accomplish this task.–Joe]
Just no Ft. Sumters
Ft. Sumter was not subtle. Subtlety can achieve a goal without the negative aspects of more overt activity.
On a completely unrelated note, it does seem sad in a way that Sen. Kennedy isn’t around to see this bill passed, although I think he’d be quite upset that the single-payer and public-option ideas were stripped out.
Joe, It’s morally reprehensible to write shit like that. Are you doing the ever-so-popular thing of subtly suggesting that Obama should be killed, yet not coming right out and saying it? Or are you talking about the extremely likely possibility that he or someone else will eventually become a tyrant and then the killing will be necessary?
If it’s the first one, it’s morally reprehensible because many of your readers are probably less stable than you are. You might be feeding psychotic fantasies in them.
If it’s the second, I think you’re suffering from paranoia and grandiose victimism. In fact, so outside the realm of possibility is this “killing tyrants in the 21st century” nonsense, that I suspect you don’t even believe it yourself. It must be an elaborate justification for your love of guns.
(Mikeb, do us all a favor and shut the hell up. You’re embarrassing yourself, although probably too stupid to realize how ignorant you are.)
Merry Christmas to you and your family, Joe.
MikeB302000,
Quoting a President of the United States is “morally reprehensible”? I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. You are opposed to the Bill of Rights so opposition to one of the documents he helped write is consistent.
I have never said, nor do I think, President Obama is a tyrant or is likely to be.
If you don’t think tyrants and their henchmen should be killed then I suggest you do more study on life under Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, or Pol Pot. That later two were in need of killing slightly over 30 years ago. Not so much has changed in the last 30 years that such occurrences are impossible to happen. It is far from impossible for such tyrants to be taken out by a small group of people skilled with precision long range rifles.
Guys like mikeb really piss me off. When exposed to the duty of freemen in the words of their predecessors they all of a sudden invoke arguments of the “sanctity of life” and the “reprehensible nature of taking life”, while they do all they can to destroy the lives of the people they are scolding and while supporting the gun hand of the state and the tyrants who would destroy those lives.
Peculiar that their “sanctity of life” issues never present at any time other than when they think there may be a price for advancing their agenda. If they meant it, they would never push things to the point where they would need to be fearful, they would just leave the peaceable the Hell alone.
That kind of talk is treasonous! The king rules by divine right; you have no rights but are granted by your superiors – the nobility and the king, who is of course the most noble of all nobility. He neither needs, wants, or is particularly interested in your consent. Every penny you own, every inch of land, every drop of blood in your veins are the King’s, do dispose of as he pleases.
The word “tyrant” needs to be pluralized; otherwise the quote is very relevant for the time we are in. And Mike, if the shoe fits it ain’t “our” fault…