Quote:
Quote by: Sonart  See, that's what I've been trying to say about guns... firearms are, by their very nature, violent. They were invented and created to be violent. Therefore, overthrowing the government by use of the firearms you say we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to use, for exactly that purpose, will naturally be violent, based on the nature of the means YOU ADVOCATE. |
I have many times said that "all laws are enforced at gunpoint" and that "all taxes are collected with the threat of violence". I make this point to say that, since the government derives their power from my rights, I will only advocate laws for which I would use my own guns to enforce and taxes for which I would be willing to use violence, myself, to collect.
Every time I make such a statement I am met with strong opposition saying that police wouldn't shoot someone for jaywalking, that taxes are collected without a threat of violence. But, you're saying that advocating governmental change while advocating the ownership of firearms is advocating violent revolution.
Am I the only one that sees the contradictions here?
And, if you don't see a contradiction, then you can't have it both ways. If you believe in human rights, and the right to be free from violence, you can't advocate malum prohibitum laws or tax collection through violence and prohibit violent revolution and opposition to such human rights violations.
Keith