On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:34:23 -0700
Razer <ray...@riseup.net> quoted:

> So… if the 2nd Amendment's "right to revolution" implication is real,
> both practically and legally, it must also include a right to possess
> tanks, jets, rocket launchers, etc.
        Yes. And not because of some constitutional statist bullshit,
        but as a matter of natural rights.

> Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our
> volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft
> batteries, maybe a submarine or two?
> Oh, you can't afford that?

        Actually, who says that you can't make D-I-Y missiles, chemical
        weapons and the like? You of course can, and so the rest of the
        article is bullshit.

        Now, the people who say that you can't are people who want you
        to be afraid of the kochs, and want you to believe that the
        government is bad, but the koch are worse, so you should thank
        the government from protecting you from the kochs after all.

        And funnily enough these people who claim to be against the
        koch are actually the kochs' best friends because the kochs
        couldn't do what they do if the government didn't back them.

> That's ok, we have some patriotic citizens who can.
> Who?
> The same billionaires who already own the government, that's who.
> So what do they want to "resist?"
> I could only see them wanting to resist checks on their own power.
> So, if the Second Amendment implies a right to resist the government,
> then that would mean that we need our billionaire friends to start
> stockpiling these weapons now. We need a Koch brothers airfield with a
> few fighters and bombers, and Adelson should have a fleet of tanks
> somewhere, and I guess that George Soros would bring his collection of
> nuke-armed submarines up to date, right?
> So lets drop the crazy scenario of Obama-cum-Ghadaffi, and just think
> about something we were really likely to see upset us. Do you think
> for a moment that you, living in some apartment in Salt Lake City, or
> a house in Wyoming, or a condo in Boca Raton, would be ready to go to
> war with the Federal Government over the same shit that would get the
> Koch Brothers to fuel up their private stock of A10 Warthogs? Really?
> Because you know what the billionaires want the government to stop
> doing?
> They want it to get out of the way of their becoming trillionaires.
> If you think that the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court
> said in Heller, and you believe that is a good thing, because it
> gives you the ability to resist the government, you might want to
> play out the long game in your head.
> The long game here is this interpretation leads to private armies,
> raised by limitless wealth, all of which looks at our quaint little
> republican form of government as nothing more than a paper
> justification to have a flag waving over a few national parks."
> Yes... There's more:
> https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/you-are-not-going-to-resist-the-government-with-your-guns/

Reply via email to