"Contrary to what the state would have you believe, you have the right to defend yourself and your property that morally supersede any law that would deny that right."
Perry DeHavilland - "Defend Yourself And Be A Vigilante."
If defending onesself and ones property means violating the law then so be it. The State can tell people they have no right to self-defense and no right to defend their homes and businesses from the mob, and the people can ignore law and defend themselves anyway. In fact, that's precisely what many Brits have done. It's exactly what they should do. Such laws are illegitimate, and when shit hits the fan people will pick up tools and engage in protective violence. Such action is both natural and rational.
Update - See Joe Huffman's post as an example of this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Except when one is faced with the Dilemma of Obeying "Signs" that say your are Legal on this patch of Grass, but Illegal if you step onto that patch of Grass that the Gooberment has declared a Park. What to do, what to do....
Les - All laws are a matter of "is the juice worth the squeeze?"
That is, is the penalty for violating said law and the risk of being caught worth the benefit of breaking it?
It's a simple risk/reward calculation and something that many Liberals have issue with. They don't understand that laws only work insofar as people are willing to obey them.
I'm of the opinion that if non-compliance with the law is essential for your very survival (like say, carrying a gun to protect yourself and your home/business during mass rioting) that's a choice you can freely make.
If we saw this level of rioting in say Baltimore or DC I wouldn't fault any law-abiding citizen who decided to carry without a permit or carry while standing outside of their business.
Post a Comment