Todd, > >I'm just glad that the founding fathers of the United States > did > >not choose the "safer" route. > > Ohhhh. OK. Then you are one of these "Armed Revolution" > nut cases?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you attempting to lump me into some sort of category? If so, speak more about the nature of this category. > Let's get it out in plain english, Ragnar. This thread is > about > whether citizens should carry guns to shoot the police, Citizens should, if they like, carry guns to defend themselves against the initiation of force. when > they don't believe the law is just, or the cop is doing his > job right. If the law calls for the initiation of force for no good reason, then I see no moral reason why people should not defend themselves. Do you? This may rattle a few cages, but I believe that some of the Jews that were herded into the trains like cattle to be branded and then thrown into the furnaces deserved their fate because some steadfastly refused to organize, to fight, to arm, to rebel, and preferred to rely on majority rule, and the "justice" of the justice system. So, Todd, what would you have done? Would you have been one of the people on the train or one of those that took out a few SS men before dying, or one that escaped into another country? Some people have a very low tolerance for subjugation. Others tolerate it well. Some welcome it. Which category are you in? Is subjugation really justifiable if it is willed by the majority? If you answer, yes, then there is nothing further for us to discuss on this topic, and you make the nature of your character quite clear. If you answer, no, then you contradict your previous statements made on this list. What a conundrum! :) > The correct action is to follow the cops' instruction, and > take it up in court. I think, currently, that that is a good alternative to shooting a cop (unless you think he is about to kill or harm someone close to you, although not necessarily a dog), especially if chances are good that you would prevail in court, or at least receive a light punishment for whatever it is that the cop is arresting you for. In a more militant/tyrannical police state, that alternative may be worse than defending yourself by shooting a cop. For example, the Jews in Germany in 1939 should have shot every Nazi that came into their gun sights. I, for one, would not have called that immoral. Apparently, you would? > If you're one of these armed-revolt people I want to know > the facts. Armed revolts have their place in history. When was the last time you read the Declaration of Independence? It spells out pretty well, I think, when is a good time to revolt. Do you think the founding fathers, if they were living today, would revolt again? Should they? Should they have revolted back in 1776? Were they nut cases? And if they were, by your definition, nut cases, then I take your offer to place me into the same category as Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al., as a high honor, indeed. Thank you. ===== Regards, Ragnar Vice Pres. - GDCA - http://www.gdcaonline.org CFO - Gold Age - http://www.gold-age.net editor - Liberty Impact - http://www.libertyimpact.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
