Harry Reid: No need to protect ourselves from ‘imagined tyrannies’

Harry Reid is calling the Founders lunatic conspiracy theorists.

Here is an excerpt from an essay by Daniel Schultz, co-founder of the Lawyers Second Amendment Society:

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”

 

Black helicopter conspiracy theorists, all of them, right?

 

 

20 comments on “Harry Reid: No need to protect ourselves from ‘imagined tyrannies’

  1. nyp10025 says:

    Yes – it is crazy, black helicoptor stuff to say that we can’t tighten loopholes in background check laws because we need shotguns in order to fight against a totalitarian federal government making war on the American people.

    Utterly crazy. And offensive.

  2. Athos says:

    Today’s Clinton/Øbama liberals are suffering from a mental disorder. They have no ability to discern reality. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. are phantoms. They didn’t do, they COULDN’T do, what they did. It’s unthinkable, therefore, it didn’t happen in the liberals’ mind.

    They don’t do too well with storm warnings, either. Like children, they simply can’t accept the truth.

    That cretin, Harry THE CROOK Reid, is an excellent spokesman for this type of dementia. When truth is restored, he will be a case study for future generations, on this brand of mental illness.

    And there will be no lack of material!

  3. You are offended by the Constitution?

  4. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” – Patrick Henry

    And what is that force, NYP, that Mr. Henry referred to? Was it not the ability to defend yourself and your property, using weapons of war? And since background checks are de facto registration, what will prevent our wondrous fedbots from using that database to attempt confiscation, should our nation face some catastrophic event, such as the financial collapse following the global repudiation of the petro-dollar?

    I suspect everyone (R) or (D), of approaching the jewel of public liberty, and will defend it to the death. The reason our Founders gave us the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence was protect that liberty, not sacrifice it on the altar of collectivism. True Americans will fight to preserve those ideals, not matter the cost, no matter who oppose us.

    And our opponents know that, hence their attempts to disarm us…

  5. Wendy Ellis says:

    Actually, about a week ago, there WAS a black helicopter flying directly over my house, very low, with spotlights pointed into my backyard! It came back twice. I am serious, it woke me up. I went outside and saw them, as I sleep on the ground floor.

    I went back inside, locked the door, and loaded my .40 Springfield XDm pistol. The magazine holds 16 rounds, plus one in the chamber. Do you think this is excessive? I keep a pellet gun by the front door, but that’s for pigeons…

    I’m not kidding about the helicopter.

  6. Nyp says:

    Great quote from Patrick Henry. It is because of those sentiments that Patrick Henry strongly opposed the Constitution as a threat to liberty.

  7. Nyp says:

    So Athos thinks that even the current laws on the books designed to block lunatics and felons from purchasing firearms are unconstitutional.
    Crazy, sick stuff.

  8. Nyp says:

    Wendy Ellis — you should check the fluoride levels in your tap water.

  9. Steve says:

    I see black helicopters all the time, but then, I live near a military installation with a lot of aircraft that provide the sounds of freedom being defended.
    One note, olive drab camo is good for hiding aircraft when on the ground but it tends to look black against a blue background (sky anyone?) And the sound made by military helicopters is very loud and distinctive. They can rattle windows.

    You really need to catch up on your conspiracy craze, Nyp. You tried to fool people before but this black helicopter stuff is WAYYYY off.
    Absolutely EVERYONE KNOWS its the SILENT black helicopters we all really need to be worried about. They are really hard to see at night too.

    Wendy has nothing to worry about, the helicopter was not one of those special stealth ones used by those shadow groups that control the world.
    It was a normal very loud one that woke her up.

    Geez Nyp, get a clue about those conspiracy theories before you get caught by one!

  10. It’s the drones you have to worry about.

  11. The Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.

  12. nyp10025 says:

    A little Rand Paul moment here. Obama is going to send drones to take you out while you are sipping a latte at Starbucks.

  13. Steve says:

    Wrong again Nyp! It was Rand Paul who fought to get this administration to declare the president does not have that authority. And just why was it so damn difficult for the president to come right out and address those concerns in the first place? Why did it take a traditional filibuster? (Even Reid was impressed.)

  14. nyp10025 says:

    Like you, I am terrified to death that I might be targeted by a drone while having a cappucino. So glad that crucial question has been resolved.

  15. Steve says:

    Thanks to Senator Paul (Who Senator Reid respects, incidentally) You and I have nothing to fear from domestic federal drone use.

  16. nyp10025 says:

    Yeah. If it wasn’t for Rand Paul (whom I don’t respect, incidentally,) I would be cowering in fear that the federal government might target me for a drone strike.
    That would completely ruin my day.

  17. Steve says:

    Yeah, it really is too bad the Obama administration (for which I have little respect, incidentally) held out so long in hopes they would be able to use those drones domestically to attack citizens.

  18. nyp10025 says:

    Yeah. The president was just itching for a chance to order a drone strike on a Starbucks.

  19. Steve says:

    Prolly yours, you had real reason to fear it.

  20. Athos says:

    petey, do they have a Starbucks for you, in Bellevue?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s