Quote of the day—David Codrea

Posted on by

I’d argue that one of the most in-your-face tyrannical phrases ever constructed is:

“RESTRICTED FOR GOVERNMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY”

David Codrea
June 29, 2021
Second Amendment will be Nullified if ‘Common Use’ is Restricted to ‘Popularity’
[A far more appropriate, and almost never used phrase, is found here:

Law Enforcement Restrictions

…

Governments that are unfriendly to basic human rights are not allowed the use…

It appears most people are of the opinion that our public servants are actually masters of the public. This attitude needs to change.—Joe]

Share

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—David Codrea”

    • I really like the idea, but I’d change “..borne…” to “…borne WITHOUT RESTRICTION…”
      The idea is that if they (or their guards) can have machine guns, they can’t require us to pay a tax stamp to own a machine gun….

      • Nice. It basically translates to “pass Constitutional Carry or go around at home and around the office (DC or wherever) defenseless and undefended”.

        • That works for me. Our hired representatives have an entirely too inflated opinion of themselves.

  2. So long as our “servants” can blatantly lie and get away with it, and so long as they escape justice when they’ve committed crimes and violated Oaths, we are by our tolerance demonstrating to them that, despite our occasional, clumsy and confused attempts at the rhetoric of liberty, we are their subjects in deed.

    And so, being that we have two sets of misguided, lame and wretched hypocrites, each wishing for dominance over the other, what good can come from it?

  3. Thanks to David for all he does. But I would argue the worst statement from a politician was Joe Biden. Not a month ago said, “no amendment to the constitution was absolute.” Say what? Holy stinking mackeral Martha!
    As all the bill of rights restricts government infringements in one way or another.. Joe just told you what Obama plans to do to us. No infringement is off the table for government. As in; All that rights stuff belongs to us now. Government approval required for use. Got it?
    Let’s all pray he makes Kamala the gun czar to!

    • Then again, Biden was saying what politicians of all 3 (or more) branches have held since the ink on the Constitution was barely dry — with just a handful of exceptions every couple of decades.

      For example, can you name one judge in recorded history who consistently obeyed the plain English written language of the Constitution? I can think of a few that were not nearly as bad as the run of the mill judge, but consistent obedience? I can’t think of a one.

      • Your absolutely correct. I’m pretty sure that’s why the first ten amendments were FORCED into the constitution.
        An they argued over it for eleven years. Few in power are willing to hand it over to peasants an serfs. Even if that’s where they just came from.
        Their just pissed that our reading comprehension is better than theirs.

      • The worst weasel word is “reasonable”, and its brother, “Unreasonable”.
        Privacy is something we can only have a “reasonable” expectation that we will have any. As we give our information to all and sundry, our expectation of even the level of privacy we enjoyed twenty years ago becomes “Unreasonable.”
        A common question in depositions is to ask the Defendant deponent for his or her social security number or Driver’s License number. They nearly always object on privacy grounds and the Plaintiff’s lawyer asks about other entities they’ve given the numbers to. The insinuation is that you gave the numbers to other entities and people, therefore because we are in a lawsuit and you may become liable for damages, you shouldn’t object to voluntarily giving it to plaintiff.
        It’s as if you’re asking a young lady to sleep with you because she has given it up to a number of other men, so what’s the difference here?

Comments are closed.