I recently ran across this in Snopes

In a time when we are debating “Red Flag Laws,” do we agree that this sort of homicidal hyperbole is monumentally stupid? My “day job,” if you will, is teaching the judicious and lawful use of deadly force in defense of self or other innocent parties.  (http://massadayoobgroup.com)  Responsibility in balance with power.  Advocating killing those we disagree with is not a good fit with responsibility.

Over more than a decade, this moderated blog has hosted well over 31,000 comments from readers. I’ve had to disallow fewer than a hundred.  The most recent did not appear here because it said, “When they violet (sic) the oath they become traitors kill them all.” 

The old gatekeeper here simply does not allow drivel like that to get through.

Hell, I should have blocked that one for the malapropism alone.  It reminded me of a joke:

Young Husband: My wife was mad at me, so I went to the flower shop and bought her a bouquet, but she’s still angry.

Old Husband: What kind of flowers?

Young Husband: Violets.

Old Husband: Well, no wonder. You should have bought her roses. Someone should have told you…

…”Violets never solved anything.”

40 COMMENTS

  1. Such talk flows directly from the weakening of respect for the Law. Once people lose respect for the law, once they begin to feel that the law will not deliver justice on a fair and equal basis, then people start thinking about resorting to violence and vigilante action in order to obtain the justice that the law is failing to provide.

    There has been a marked degradation of the Rule of Law in the United States over the last few decades. Various reasons have been proposed for it.

    If you ask people who believe in the left-wing ideology of Political Correctness and Identity Politics, they will project the blame upon President Donald Trump. They will claim that President Trump’s crude language and tweets have degraded the Office of President and lowered the common standard of decency.

    I reject such thinking for several reasons:

    1) The degradation of the Law was already underway long before Donald Trump began his run for President. Therefore, he could not have been the “source” of the problem.

    2) Speech, alone (no matter how crude), is never a justification for violence. If Freedom of Speech means anything, then President Trump has a Right to express his views. If these views enrage the American Left, then too bad. Speech which goes against the flow of conventional PC dogma is speech that needs the greatest degree of protection in America today. Note that the President’s Speech is all the Left truly has to show. President Trump has been the most “investigated” President in the history of the United States. The Democrats and their media attack dogs have left no stone un-turned in their efforts to find some kind of crime that could be used to impeach the President. As their latest impeachment fiasco shows, they are still coming up dry.

    3) Actions speak louder than words. It is the ACTIONS of the American Left that has degraded law and order in the U.S. The examples are legion. Black Lives Matter (BLM) has worked tirelessly to denigrate and undermine the police. The Obama Administration politicized the Department of Justice, the CIA and the FBI and used them as weapons against its political enemies. This has resulted in a huge loss of respect for these organs of the Law. In addition, left-wing politicians have engaged in numerous corrupt acts (the Trayvon Hoax leading to the establishment of BLM, the bribing of Joe Biden through his son, the selling of influence by the Clintons through their foundation, The Uranium One Scandal, The use of smear tactics against President Trump by means of the Russian Hoax, etc. etc. etc.). The Democrats then use the Two-Tiered legal System, that they have created, to escape the consequences of their corrupt acts. Indeed, they have the gall to project their corruption upon their political opponents and then launch investigations based upon these false projections.

    I think that anyone, who’s mind is not totally overthrown by left-wing bias, has to admit that the American Left is responsible for the Lion’s Share of the blame for the denigration of Respect for the Law in recent decades.

    If we want to end such wild talk and end the chance that the People will feel compelled to resort to vigilante violence, then Respect for the Law must be restored. The Two-Tiered Justice System, built by the Left, must be abolished and a return must be made to impartial administration of the Law. People responsible for correct acts must be brought to Justice irrespective of how high they stand within the Democratic Party or the Deep State.

    Depend upon it. Once the People see that Lady Justice has put her blindfold back on and is using her sword to punish all wrongdoers equally, such wild talk will vanish.

    • Typo correction for my previous comment. In the next to last paragraph, I meant to say “corrupt acts” not “correct acts”. Blasted spell-checker must be programmed by a Leftist! 🙂

      • I read for content and sense. My autocorrect caught that and I read “corrupt” and not “correct”. Everything else made perfect sense so I KNEW it was not your intended word. I used the only other one that is close, that fits your “drift” Or, perhaps more accurately, desired course, (drift implies randomness and non-intentionality)

    • TN_MAN, While I certainly agree that “respect for the law” is critically important to a people, I must respectfully disagree somewhat that it is all the fault of the “left”. Certainly, they have contributed as you have shown but it began years ago with prohibition, when millions flaunted the Volstead Act (18th Amendment), even though that was a “Constitutional” act. When Nixon (A Republican) initiated the “War On (Some) Drugs”, without a Constitutional change, the resentment escalated and grew, as did organized crime and the police state.

      Until we as a people stop trying to control others through “mala prohibita” rules of conduct, I cannot foresee a future free from contempt of law. What is tragic about the “Mala Prohibita” rules is that for the uninformed, which is most, they lump all “”laws as wrong and throw out the “mala in se” laws which protect everyone.

      I believe that until we separate petty rules of control (mala prohibita) from true laws that protect all equally (mala in se) we will not see the respect return.

      Both parties have contributed to this tragedy. “The “Right” wants to make you be good and the left wants to make you do good. ” They both use “law” to accomplish their goals, thus polluting that basic concept of fairness.

      As MamaLiberty said “The root of all evil is the desire of some, to control the lives or property of others.”

      Mas, I compliment you on your tolerance regarding posts. Thank you!

      • You are correct about the malum in se and mala prohibida distinction. Far to many “offenses” are victimless crimes, and are largely put in place as a means of “tell us how we should live”.

        The cure is a radical return to the strict meaning and extent of the Constitutoin tht binds us all. Where do FedGov find the stated authority assigning THEM a say-so over whatever we do/do not put into our bodies, how and upon what se spend our money, anything to do with medicine, health, or insurance, anything to do with firearms (the clar instructions to ALL government is “shall not be infringed”, is it not?) WHERE DO FEDGOV GET “AUTHORITY’ to hold so much unspecified territory, ro manage waterways (the only reference I can find even remotely relating to that is to fight “piracy on the high seas” (seems the only piracy goes on when EPA decides they have an obligation to manage a hillside in Idaho on the basis that some water ran downslopw last time it raine,d therefor that land is “navigable waterway” and suvject to their control) and I could go on for pages… but you lot alreadt know these things>)

        Of FedGov were suddenly restricte to those few and carefully described areas of authority outlined for them, mainly i Art 1 Section 8, oh what a nice Christmas it would be, eh?

        Or how about restricing all these two bit Fed level “judges” taking up cases specifially prohibited them by Art 3 Par 2 Sec 2? Nearly EVERY circuit or district court rulin since Trump was sworn in are cases over whichvthose courts had NO AUTHORITY. They are to be taken up ONLY by SCOTUS on original jurisdiction.
        We HAVE the means to return things to “normal”.

      • @ Tahn – “I must respectfully disagree somewhat that it is all the fault of the ‘left’.”

        A bit of a mis-characterization of my post. What I actually wrote was “that the American Left is responsible for the Lion’s Share of the blame”. I did not say “all the fault”.

        This is a point that I stand behind. I know that many people believe that Alcohol Prohibition was a Right-Wing movement. Once it failed, the American Left began projecting it as such. In addition, many of the leaders of the movement were religious and, in many people’s minds, that automatically makes them Right-Wing. The fact that you mention the Volstead Act as a beginning point that, you imply, is separate from the Left also implies that you believe Alcohol Prohibition to be a Right-Wing Movement. This is incorrect.

        While the old-time Alcohol Prohibitionists were not Left-Wing in the economic, Marxist sense, they were certainly Left-Wing in their basic approach. Left-Wing Movements can always be identified by keeping two (2) criteria in mind. These are:

        1) A Left-Wing Movement will ALWAYS identify a problem (to justify their Movement) and then place the blame for the aforesaid problem upon some social or environmental cause. A Leftist WILL NEVER hold that the problem is being caused by a failure of individual responsibility. They ALWAYS argue that it is caused by a social defect.

        2) The solution to deal with the problem will always involve a Big Government approach. Typically, it will involve some new government program (and bureaucracy) that will try to “make you do good” (as you put it).

        As you can see, Alcohol Prohibition CLEARLY meets the above criteria. The Temperance Movement articulated a bunch of social problems (drunkenness, loss of production, accidents, domestic violence, crime, damage to health, etc.) as a result of consuming too much alcohol. They placed the blame squarely upon the easy environmental availability of alcohol (a social defect). Individual responsibility in self-controlling consumption was ignored and dismissed as a “non-factor”.

        The proposed solution was to pass a Constitutional Amendment and a law (The Volstead Act) which then created a bureaucracy to try to eliminate alcohol completely from society. A classic left-wing, Big-Government response.

        I submit that Alcohol Prohibition was a Left-Wing Ideology as surely as Marxism is one.

        If you apply the two criteria, above, to the “War on Drugs”, you will see that it is basically a Left-Wing ideology as well although, I will admit, there are Right-Wing arguments that support it as well. Drug enforcement is one area where there is some overlap between left-wing and right-wing ideologies leading to broad public support.

        Just because a program starts up under a Republican Administration, you cannot assume that it is Right-Wing. There are plenty of Republican Leftists who will argue for left-wing policies even within a Republican Administration.

        A true Conservative will favor a Small Government Position. A Small Government Position tends to be somewhat hostile to the “Mala Prohibita” laws which distress you so. A RINO Republican or a “Died-in-the-Wool” Leftist will favor a Big Government position in which such laws are well-favored.

        So, I stand by my statement. The “Lion’s Share” of the blame goes to the Left. The fact that some of these Leftists are actually RINO Republicans does not change this result.

      • TN_MAN,

        You are correct that I miss-characterized “lions share” with “all” and I certainly apologize, although you must admit that the bulk, if not the entirety, of your wonderful analysis, which I rarely disagree with, concerns the “left” part of government. My point is to attempt to show that both parties have been instrumental in subverting the Constitution and freedom. Many attacks are from “Republicans” also and I believe we should not attempt to disparage one side only, although concerning firearms, the “Democrats” are much more guilty than “Republicans”. Still, President Trump (Republican) signed a law banning or limiting access to “bump stocks, an item I had never heard of, much less seen or used. Still, I would consider that an “infringement” on the Second amendment.

        Concerning The Volstead Act, it was named after a “Republican” representative who introduced it and was actually vetoed by Pres. Wilson, a Democrat whom I consider the first socialist President.

        The “Drug War” was certainly sponsored and pushed by “Republicans. In fact, I believe it was Nixon’s aid, Ehrlichman, that stated the Drug War was done for political purposes alone.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/03/23/nixons-drug-war-an-excuse-to-lock-up-blacks-and-protesters-continues/#47b6b49d42c8

        Having said the above, I agree with your statement “Just because a program starts up under a Republican Administration, you cannot assume that it is Right-Wing. There are plenty of Republican Leftists who will argue for left-wing policies even within a Republican Administration.” There are wolves in sheep’s clothing abundant in both parties and I cannot disagree with your analysis of the “philosophy” of those wanting control over others.

        Again, my point is to show that BOTH parties are partners in diminishing our freedoms, not only the “Left”, although again, I cannot but agree with your analysis of today’s “left”. I would enjoy your similar analysis of why the “Right” wing, in violation of the Constitution, wants to control others also.

        In rereading my comments and yours, I see that I have mixed metaphors by using “Republican” and “Democrat” interchangeably with “Left wing” and Right wing”. While I believe this is “predominately true”, as you have stated there are leftists abundant in both parties. Perhaps we should use different phrases when attempting to analysis the philosophy of either side. Perhaps “Tyrant” is the correct word.

      • @ Tahn – “Concerning The Volstead Act, it was named after a ‘Republican’ representative who introduced it and was actually vetoed by Pres. Wilson, a Democrat whom I consider the first socialist President.

        The ‘Drug War’ was certainly sponsored and pushed by ‘Republicans’. In fact, I believe it was Nixon’s aid, Ehrlichman, that stated the Drug War was done for political purposes alone.”

        Both Alcohol Prohibition and Narcotic Prohibition (AKA The War on Drugs) are cross-over ideologies. By that, I mean that both left-wing and right-wing ideology can be twisted to support them. They have the potential to draw support from both ends of the political spectrum.

        You are correct in your contention that the “War on Drugs” was largely driven by the Right but with some Left-Wing support. The first Narcotics Prohibition Law was actually the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 which was introduced by a Democrat and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. However, you are correct that Narcotic Prohibition received a major push during the Nixon Administration.

        As you note, this was done for political purposes. I think that it was done so that the Nixon Administration could draw in both left-wing and right-wing support for Nixon’s foreign policy. Military aid to other countries could be associated with fighting narcotics. Also, it helped Nixon domestically since he could target anti-Vietnam War protest groups under the guise of going after drug users. In other words, the War on Drugs was a useful “short-term” policy that helped Nixon advance his foreign policy and target his domestic political enemies. It was the usual Washington D.C. version of “Game of Thrones”. In the long run, of course, the “War on Drugs” was terrible policy.

        Alcohol Prohibition certainly started out as a Right-Wing Religious Movement. In the early days, the emphasis was on “Temperance” which is defined as “moderation or self-restrain in one’s actions”. The early emphasis was on “being good” within oneself. To “go on the wagon” or “take the pledge” and abstain from alcohol on a personal, voluntary basis. This emphasis on self-regulation of behavior placed the early Temperance Movement squarely in the Right-Wing camp.

        However, the movement was invaded by leftist activists such as Frances Willard (National President of the WCTU) and Wayne Wheeler (Leader of the Anti-Saloon League). Despite being a Republican, Wayne Wheeler was a firm Leftist in his ideology as was Frances Willard.

        With Leftists in-charge of the Movement, it became a Left-Wing Prohibition Movement rather than a Right-Wing Temperance Movement. The policy changed from “asking one to be good” to “forcing one to be good” by means of Big Government Legal power. Thus, the path was set for the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act. As in the case of the “War on Drugs”, The anti-alcohol movement drew some support from the other side of the political spectrum but the final policy of Prohibition was pure left-wing.

        As proof of this, one can easily compare the Alcohol Prohibition Movement, of a Century ago, with the Firearms Prohibition Movement (AKA Gun Control) of today. The “thinking” behind both movements is identical. Both movements (1) identify social problems related to man-made objects (either misuse of alcohol or misuse of firearms), (2) place the blame upon the “easy availability” of these man-made objects (demon guns or demon bottles of rum 🙂 ), and propose a Big Government Solution of forced Prohibition as the cure.

        I think everyone would agree that today’s Gun Control groups are Left-Wing as are the politicians pushing the policy. So, how on Earth can anyone think that an ideology like Firearms Prohibition is Left-wing while the older, identical Alcohol Prohibition ideology was Right-wing? That is a logical impossibility.

        No, whatever it was originally and irrespective of whatever support it drew from the “Religious Right”, the old Alcohol Prohibition Movement became ultra Left-Wing. In its final form, it was as left-wing as Marxism or as is the current Firearms Prohibition Movement of today.

        One difference is that Firearms Prohibition is not a “Cross-over” ideology like Alcohol and Narcotic Prohibition. There is less Right-Wing support for Firearms Prohibition although RINO’s may still act to stab the 2nd Amendment in the back.

        As a side note, it is not a coincidence that firearms, tobacco, alcohol and explosives are all regulated by a single Federal Bureau (The BATFE). While these items seem unrelated logically, they are related under left-wing ideology. They are all man-made objects that the left would like to ban or has tried to ban in the past. They are all objects on the Left’s list of “Negative Environmental Man-Made Objects” that cause people to do BAD THINGS. So, to create the Left-Wing Utopia, these objects will all have to be ultimately prohibited for the People to possess (for their OWN GOOD, don’t you know?) In the meantime, the Left has created a single Federal Bureaucracy to regulate them!

        In other words, the organization of the BATFE makes perfect sense from a left-wing ideological perspective.

  2. Red Flag Laws violate our Constitution on many levels. 1st; 2nd; 4th; 6th Amendments just to get started. It is an affront to everything our Constitution stands for. How is it that the “progressive” class sees that not? Add that to what is proposed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, (SB16 and SB64), and tyrants rein supreme. God help us. We still have a Republic; if we can keep it.

  4. Keep up with engaging the 2nd Amendment community with awareness and reminding us with thought provoking firearm education and calling out the ones who do not respect our/their rights to responsible firearm ownership.

  5. Unfortunately those folks are out there. I come across them at the range where I am a member. Their statement and thought is if that person breaks into my home i have every right to kill him/her. I do my best to correct them and 90% of the time to no avail. I like using Mas’s line that” your home is not an execution chamber”. As I stated only 10% get it, sadly.

    • Don P,

      You are correct. Whenever I hear someone say they want to kill a criminal in self-defense, I tell them that won’t sound good in court. I tell them to say they just wanted to stop the violent, criminal attack.

      • Don P., thank you for trying, I have a brother with autism, he’s 62. He wouldn’t hurt anyone but James will panic. Which my father never brought to my attention. This, after my mother passed. I never believed in just firing a shot, it’s been said there’s a lawyer attached to every bullet. I will defend my life. If a break-in occurs, and the perp leaves my room, with my showing of force. Then, problem solved.

  6. The trend seems to be getting farther away from the intended purpose of serving the people and more of a tribal chest thumping that only recognizes the savage path to the top of the political food chain at all costs.
    I say a minimum prerequisite for running for public service office should be a MAG20.

  7. And while we’re stringing up the miscreants, grammerical and political, let them be hanged, not hung. Please.

    • Gun free zones contribute to this problem. Every time you go to one, you are faced with the choice of being unarmed in transit and other venues you may be visiting on the same trip or leaving the gun in the car. Neither are good choices.

  9. For one thing candidate Buck did not recommend shooting illmar, but, rather, hanging her. This should lead us all to considerations of passing laws in regard to rope ownership and the licensing rope use. This would both be an additional source of revenue for the government and remove a potentially lethal and currently readily available danger from casual use.
    I also believe that there are a plethora of demokrat congressional members who have advocated violence against republikants in general and members of Trump’s administration (including the President himself) in particular without receiving approbation in the press.

    • Noah Vaile,

      I thought the worst was Kathy Griffin holding a fake, bloody, severed head of President Trump. Of course when the Left does stunts it’s OK because it is comedy or performance art.

      I’m glad neither Presidents Obama nor Trump have been assassinated. However, Gabby Giffords and Steve Scalise almost got assassinated.

  10. When I started my journey into owning firearms about 15 years ago, I stumbled on the then AmBack Forums and the code of conduct posted by Dean Speir really affected not just my behavior, but my mindset. Those rules forbid saying anything like, “I’m tired of just shooting paper targets” because there were people there who had really killed other human beings in the course of law enforcement, self-defense, and/or military duties. Chest-thumping statements might feel good, but they’re empty and minimize the actions and consequences of those required to use deadly force. Later, LFI gave me legal reasons to avoid painting myself as bloodthirsty but by then I had internalized the need to be circumspect in my speech and actions.

    When someone makes a statement to the effect of “Libtards need to start dying.” I often try to gently point out this can hang them in court if they ever find themselves as a defendant in a legitimate self-defense case. Invariably such people label me as women’s genitalia. For some reason, it’s never another slur.

  11. Many might find this a stretch…. but if “18 U.S. Code § 2385.Advocating overthrow of Government” were enforced, I think the resulting convictions would go a long way toward restoring the citizens’ faith in application of the law.

    • Also, 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242, “Conspiracy against rights” and “Deprivation of rights under color of law”, respectively.

      Particularly regarding so-called “Red flag” laws, but also applying to “free speech codes” and “gun control” laws in general.

      • While I see 18 U.S.C. 238 as protecting the statists and it seems a dreadful law and contrary to Jefferson’s thoughts on this same subject, I can also see 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 as protecting the Constitution and the Rights of the people. Maybe we need some indictments of government criminals to slow up the tyranny.

        Thank you both, “Archer” and “Just an Observer” for bringing these to my attention.

  13. “Thugs in blue “ is out there. And no point arguing.
    My last suggestion was hey, on their world just disarm the police and have them just write reports after the fact.
    Of course then you get mob rule but you “solved” that problem.

    I dislike painting ANY group as “they are all xxx” because it’s pretty much always false. Some people had bad interactions with law so they see all of them through the same filter…

  14. Always operate your mind before opening your mouth. When in the presence of those you don’t know extremely well, speak as if your words will be broadcast to the entire world, because it may be, especially with the proliferation of small devices that can record your actions and words on video. Big brother/sister is watching and listening!

    • Tom606,

      When driving a car, I now simply assume a camera is watching me somewhere. I know I’m not being watched all the time,but in the future, I will be. No more rolling through stop signs for me. I use the blinker even if I don’t see any cars around me. Keeps my insurance rates down, too. Guess I’m learning to become an obedient subject, like the British are today.

      • Jolly good show, Roger. You have finally seen the error of your previous ways. Won’t be too long before tiny, insect sized aerial drones will be following us around and reporting back to Big Brother of our possible nefarious activities 😉

  15. Sadly, there seems to be a shrinking maturity level in our culture and the irrational, childish profanity and flippancy one sees in places like YouTube comments sections has become the norm. There’s even a well-known trainer that’s screeching ‘Kill them legally!’ and actually expects to be taken seriously. It’s also seen in the idiocy of engraving garbage like ‘Smile and wait for flash’ on pistol barrels, or superhero logos and skull crushing crap Cerakoted onto frames and slides. I’m not just ripping on millennials, I’m seeing guys in their 40’s and 50’s engage in this moronic drivel. If we ever lose our 2A rights, I think it’ll be in part due to our own behaving like unthinking dolts trying to ‘out testosterone’ each other with comic book or locker room nonsense. Ok, we get it… you have a Punisher skull on your gun, your holster, your shirt, tattooed on your bicep and wrapped all over your jacked up truck, you’re a badass, you’re real tough guy, we get it. Right. Man, I just want to yell “Grow the Hell up and act like an adult!” when I see this dreck…

    • RS Davis,

      My cat has the softest fur. When she is not in fighting mode (she never has to fight, just mock-fight with the dog and me) she is a purring powder puff. But if she ever has to fight, the claws and fangs will come out, and she will become a lean, mean, fighting, scratching machine!

      Similarly, we are in a civilized society, where the rule of law prevails. When that breaks down, then the kind of talk mentioned above will be appropriate. Even then, if civilization and the rule of law return, the police might try to investigate what happened during the lawless period.

      But just the fact that we are doing this type of self-examination, and self-policing our speech, shows that we are on the side of law and order. We are the good guys. Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin and Mao didn’t worry about their speech or actions.

  17. There is less good writing because there are fewer readers. If more internet writers were readers of good literature we would all be able to tell each other to go to hell and make us look forward to the trip. The man writing as Theodore Dalrymple addresses the cultural rot on the other side of the pond. “Race to the Bottom” is worth your time. Separately, I believe that my appreciation of the beauty of the language found in Jane Austin, Thomas Hardy, Patrick O’Brian, the Bible, etc. allowed me to develop speech that thoroughly disguises the deplorable guttersnipe that lurks in my inner man. Sister Mary Catherine, your efforts bear fruit.

    Here’s an interview with the man himself. Spoken in an English that is rarely heard and underappreciated. Mas, love you bro. Hope to see you soon.

    https://youtu.be/fgGs5pyS4Gg

  18. Remember that Trump was elected because nice guys were not getting the job done. America needs a strong hand on the helm in order to turn the ship of state around. The Left doesn’t want to change course, so there is a fight going on. We are in a cold civil war.

    I’m sure many people on both sides are thinking violence, or a peaceful separation, are on the horizon. Some of us verbalize our thoughts, so the coarse language comes out. Will we one day become like Syria?

      • Roger, you should be more against violas which are bigger and can cause more damage than violins. Former POTUS George W. Bush was too nice a guy and thought if he treated Democrats well, they would do the same for him. Wrong! Liberals are vicious animals and one should not be gentle with them. They see decency and fairness as a weakness. Bush allowed the Democrats to have their way and they damaged his administration by passing bad legislation which 43 did not veto as he should have. Of course trying to correct his father’s mistake back in the early 1990’s by invading Iraq did not help him and drove up the nation’s debt unnecessarily, paving the way for Barack Hussein Obama, aka our Dear Leader, to occupy the White House for eight very long dark years.

  19. I haven’t seen the cover on the right in a long time…

    I’ve bought several copies over the years, and lent them out to people until they didn’t come back, and bought replacement copies.

    Well, at least I hope the ones who denied having kept it got some use of it.

  20. Many well thought out opinions above.

    Mine:

    1. It’s Leftist, not Liberal

    B, When politicians refuse to follow the laws (Constitution) why should we be constrained by laws?

    3rd I am a good, law abiding citizen. Should some legislature change me into a criminal by criminalizing legal, Constitutionally protected activity, then I will do my best to be a GOOD criminal.

    Fourth Sic vis pacem, para bellum.

    Prep now.

Comments are closed.