"The state calls its own violence `law', but that of the individual `crime'"
-Max Stirner
Yup, and it always seeks to have a monopoly on violence so that it may commit crimes against individuals under the pretense of "law." It is exactly this which the Founders meant to guard against when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. You cannot be free without the ability to defend yourself from violence, be it violence from random criminals or from state actors. Tyranny perpetrated against one individual is no less of a travesty than tyranny committed upon the masses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This goes directly hand-in-hand with the mental disconnect anti-rights nuts seem to have with firearms. Take, for example, the recent spree shooting in Brazil - when in the murderer's hand, the gun is an evil engine of death, and its example should be held up as a reason to ban similar things everywhere. However, the police officer who shot the murderer did so with a firearm of his own, and little to no mention of that is made.
Why?
Well, because he was a police officer, and therefore his gun is different.
Or, take the Tucson shooting - a concealed carrier did not shoot anyone, but responded to the scene, and the next thing we know, the anti-rights nuts are whinging about what could have happened. Uh, yeah, that did not happen, you ignorant dolts.
Given the abuses of power our very own government has committed over the years, I cannot say as though I will ever understand this mentality...
Post a Comment