• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Judge A. Napolitano on Guns and Feedom

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
SNIPPED
. . . But the Constitution does provide the right to keep and bear arms -- . . .

You make a common error. The Constitution does NOT provide us with rights. Nor does the Bill of Rights. This is one of the reasons that Hamilton (and others) were concerned that a Bill of Rights would be construed to be the only rights of the people (Federalist # 84).

If you read the Bill of Rights you will notice that they restrict the government, not provide rights to the people. Since this is a 2nd amendment board, notice the exact wording of the 2nd amendment. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right pre exists the Constitution. This is in keeping with the theme of the Declaration of Independence in which the concept of inalienable rights granted by a "creator" is brought forth.

The Constitution grants limited powers to the federal government. These powers are, for the most part, delineated in Article 1, Section 8. Over time, through judicial "interpretation" and application of the "Necessary and Proper" clause as well as Hamilton's "Implied Powers" doctrine (with which he convinced George Washington to sign the bill authorizing the First Bank of the United States), these limited powers have been expanded beyond anything the founders would recognize.

The most often abused power granted the federal government is the "Commerce" clause from Article 1, Section 8. It has been used to justify regulation of things such as a farmer growing his own feed, firearms, and most recently "Obamacare".

No, the Constitution does not provide the right to keep and bear arms. That right belongs to the people independent of the Constitution.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Napolitano is no Conservative. If he were, he would find no Constitutional "right to shoot tyrants" or "right to shoot at them effectively." The Constitution nowhere mentions these alleged "rights." But the Constitution does provide the right to keep and bear arms -- and one reason for that is because arms are a means to fight tyranny. The authors of these words certainly had the Declaration of Independence's right to "alter and abolish" government that has become "destructive of these ends" in mind. A subtle distinction perhaps: but an important one for a judge to recognize, because different people have different ideas about what tyranny is -- and therefore different ideas about who it might be OK to shoot at. Mostly, a judge's job is to put people who want to shoot at government officials because they regard them as "tyrants" in jail or mental institutions.

Napolitano was not fired for messing up that subtle distinction.

If he was fired, he was fired for this:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52b_1329796059

because he suggested that Republicans might be as bad as Democrats on 2nd Amendment issues, and the many other issues he lists, of importance to the people who his message resonates with, which probably includes a great many people on this forum.

The libertarian message is only acceptable on Fox if it serves Republican interests. That is Roger Ailes job. He never stopped doing it.
How exactly do you fight tyranny if you can not shoot tyrants? I'll know a tyrant when I see one and he'll be the one subjecting me to tyranny. I'm pretty sure you will know a tyrant when you see one because he will be subjecting you to tyranny. Even though your tyrant might not be my tyrant.

A judges' job is to make sure that folk who do not deserve to go to jail do not go to jail. Think positive.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Guns & Freedom the Resistance of Tyranny

How exactly do you fight tyranny if you can not shoot tyrants? I'll know a tyrant when I see one and he'll be the one subjecting me to tyranny. I'm pretty sure you will know a tyrant when you see one because he will be subjecting you to tyranny. Even though your tyrant might not be my tyrant.

A judges' job is to make sure that folk who do not deserve to go to jail do not go to jail. Think positive.

Some of you may have seen this before; I just want to reiterate this with a snip from history.

The uprising of the Warsaw ghetto in April 1943 came as a complete surprise to the Nazis. A small number of youn Jews armed mostly with pistols and a few rifles, hand grenades, and fire bombs offered a strong and desperate resistnace to crack SS troops. Many German soldiers were killed or wounded, and only after days of hard fighting and the use of heavy weapons did the Nazis take control of the ghetto.

Years later, during a TV show commemorating the uprising, one of the few Jewish survivors remarked, "There is one thing I regret very much; I didn't have a submachine gun"

I'm pretty confident the people in the Warsaw ghettos knew who the tyrants were.

You are helpless to resist tyranny without weapons. You resist tyranny by shooting the tyrants.

~Whitney
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Some of you may have seen this before; I just want to reiterate this with a snip from history.

The uprising of the Warsaw ghetto in April 1943 came as a complete surprise to the Nazis. A small number of youn Jews armed mostly with pistols and a few rifles, hand grenades, and fire bombs offered a strong and desperate resistnace to crack SS troops. Many German soldiers were killed or wounded, and only after days of hard fighting and the use of heavy weapons did the Nazis take control of the ghetto.

Years later, during a TV show commemorating the uprising, one of the few Jewish survivors remarked, "There is one thing I regret very much; I didn't have a submachine gun"

I'm pretty confident the people in the Warsaw ghettos knew who the tyrants were.

You are helpless to resist tyranny without weapons. You resist tyranny by shooting the tyrants.

~Whitney

Great post.

I don't know much about this event, but I wonder if they tried to focus their efforts on taking the weapons they wanted. The reason many revolutions succeed is that the revolutionaries has inferior weapons to the tyrants, but use what they have to take what they need.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
How exactly do you fight tyranny if you can not shoot tyrants? I'll know a tyrant when I see one and he'll be the one subjecting me to tyranny. I'm pretty sure you will know a tyrant when you see one because he will be subjecting you to tyranny. Even though your tyrant might not be my tyrant.

A judges' job is to make sure that folk who do not deserve to go to jail do not go to jail. Think positive.

Oh, he knows them already.

Donkey's inability to articulate the right to shoot tyrants arises from nervousness, not inability to see.

He's a socialist. He's a mouth-piece for tyrants. He advocates for forcing others to pay for various social programs, advocates for Democrat candidates. He full well understands that the right to shoot tyrants means he personally could be a target. The thought that others might exercise their right to shoot tyrants against him is what makes him minimize or invalidate the right.

He dares not openly acknowledge the right because he full well understands that it could be exercised against him. The last thing he wants is the hosts of his parasitism to understand they have a right to shoot tyrants.
 
Last edited:

Cannonball

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
24
Location
Charlotte, NC
OC - tyrants are (usually) only one or two people. It is their "minions" that we need to worry about.

Read this quote by C.S. Lewis, author of the "Narnia" stories:


“Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”

Now think "Moochelle" and her food requirements, Bloomnut and sodas, the EPA and coal, "hybrid/EV" cars, corn-based ethanol, etc.

JTHunter, today is the day you are supposed to be sharing C.S. Lewis quotes! Today marks exactly 50 years after his death so I suppose I'll offer another applicable one.

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

Oh if only they would turn around.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
A judges' job is to make sure that folk who do not deserve to go to jail do not go to jail.

I disagree. That would be the task for a jury.

What you speak of is a far too important a task for a black robed government feeder. The only purpose of a judge during a trial is to ensure a fair and impartial trial. Most cannot do even that in a competent manner.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
(chuckle)

I can see both Thundar's and OC's points.

I'm betting the judge's job is to support the government while giving just enough pretended impartiality that the rabble doesn't rise with pitchforks.
 
Top