Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

The right to shoot tyrants

Written By: Bob - Jan• 11•13

Judge-Andrew-Napolitano
Every once in a while an honest and straightforward Constitutional scholar cuts through the lies and subterfuge of Washington, DC, to lay down the plain meaning of the law in such a way it cannot be mistaken.

Take it away, Judge Napolitano:

If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

41 Comments

  1. Viktor says:

    “It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”

    Exactly! So, who’s got an M-16 they’re looking to sell?

  2. chiefjaybob says:

    Yeah, see, he’s obviously got it wrong. See, I was arguing with a really smart liberal lawyer yesterday, and she pointed me to this opinion piece from Harvard Law Review on the Heller decision: http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/november08/Comment_5857.php

    In the opinion the writer pens: “On the originalism view, the Court is merely enforcing the judgments of eighteenth-century Americans, who, in an epochal act of constitutional lawmaking, ratified a Bill of Rights that forbids handgun bans such as the District of Columbia’s…. [T]he Court stands above the fray, disinterested, merely executing the commands of Americans long deceased.” So, you see, this talk of three-cornered hats and muskets and tea parties is very old fashioned and really should be abandoned. In our brave new, FORWARD world-view, these things can be discarded.

    Now, all the other mumbo-jumbo about freedom of religion, the press, protection from double jeopardy, quartering of troops, etc., etc., that’s still OK for now. It’s a shame the founders just screwed up that one amendment.

    • Chris Watson says:

      This is sarcasm, right?

      • chiefjaybob says:

        Yes, very. I was disgusted that this over-educated gink was trying to tell me, “Harvard Law Review is the gold standard of legal opinion and review.” Gag.

    • iconoclast says:

      All the prohibitions against federal (or state) infringements of our inalienable rights depend upon Constitutional lawmaking passed by people long dead. And it is in our power to change any and all of that–simply amend the Constitution to either rewrite or delete the 2nd Amendment. It only requires 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of all state legislatures or just call 2/3rds of the States to a Constitutional Convention where the amendment can simply be passed.

      If the people and their representatives truly believe that the “old-fashioned” talk needs to be abandoned then there are two straightforward ways to abandon it.

      • Chuck says:

        Since my right to keep and bear arms is a natural, God-given right, it is not “given” to me by the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, even if the Constitutional process was followed to repeal the 2A, it would be an illegitimate act and I would be under no moral or legal obligation to give up my guns or my rights. In my view, a repeal of any one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights would be an act of war on the American people.

        Tyranny is tyranny no matter what legal fiction you use to impose it.

      • JSW says:

        Let me see if I have this straight, Icon… you’re willing to surrender your right to self defense because it isn’t in the Constitution? Or, if the Second is repealed, you’ll no longer ever try to stop someone from harming, or killing, you, since it is no longer a ‘right’ to defend yourself since it isn’t written on parchment?
        Yah, right- I’m sure you will (not ‘you’, ‘your’, or ‘yourself’ personally, but as a people).
        Now, tell me again about how we repeal the Second. Then the First… then…

  3. Trudy C says:

    When do the nukes go on sale?

    • Bill says:

      Reductio ad absurdem is not an argument.

      • Viktor says:

        Actually reductio ad absurdum usually IS a logically valid form of argument; but Trudy’s not making a reductio ad absurdum argument (though she may think she is). Instead, she’s implying a VALID slippery slope.

        In other words she thinks that the argument that Napolitano makes (that individuals have a right to own AR-15s) could also be applied to acknowledge a right of individuals to own nuclear weapons.

        She may be right.

        Trudy’s problem, however, is that the slope — if it exists — is slippery in both directions.

        If there is a premise forbidding individual ownership of nuclear weapons which also applies to individual ownership of, say, AR-15s; then that same premise would also prohibit individual ownership of ANY weapon …. including rifles, revolvers, baseball bats, kitchen knives, or knuckles.

        That last paragraph is an example of a valid reductio ad absurdum**. Trudy’s (unstated) premise, if it applies to both nukes and AR-15s, would necessarily also apply to your own fists … an absurd — but logically inevitable — result from her premises (whatever the hell they are).

        **(at least, it would be if we were dealing with stated premises rather than things merely implied)

    • Henry Bowman says:

      They should be on sale now, but I suspect that the price is far more than most people (or most countries) can afford.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      If man portable nukes actually existed and were easily manufacturable, regulatory bureaucracies would be obsolete.

      • Chris Watson says:

        They do and the Russians lost track of most of them when the Wall fell.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        Chis Watson, they absolutely don’t exist. Man portable nukes don’t exist, and you know why, because large bureaucratic states are still in existence. Understand the implications.

    • Poshboy says:

      A law would not restrict the ability of individuals to acquire a nuclear weapon. If you have $50M to spend on one, you don’t care what the law says. You’re either wealthy or motivated enough not to give a damn about what is in the US Code.

      Plus, a nuke of any size is not like a box of 70 year old rifle ammunition. They do require constant maintenance of a very specialized nature, and unlike ammo sitting in a box, a nuke can kill you just by being in the same room through faulty shielding.

      Reductio ad absurdum arguments are the fallback of weak minds that are unable to grasp the reality of a topic.

      • Poshboy says:

        Oh btw, there is no law today in the US restricting the ownership of assembled nuclear weapons.

        The only restriction on such devices are you must have a DOE license to possess fissionable materials. And yes, the process to receive a license is much more lengthy and intrusive than an ATF 4473 form.

        Still, I would not recommend buying one…there are better ways of defending oneself from tyranny and the neighborhood crook.

    • david7134 says:

      The makings are fairly simple and can be obtained about as easy as an automatic weapon.

    • Mike says:

      Nukes, bombs and grenades are omni directional. Guns specify a target. Therefore there may a distinction made this way.

  4. R7 Rocket says:

    Lord and Marquis David Gregory will not be prosecuted by the DC AG (the AG is a cocktail party friend of Gregory and his wife) because he is a noble, unlike us peons and serfs.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/11/169188028/nbcs-david-gregory-wont-be-charged-for-showing-ammo-magazine

    The Washington DC city government is now officially illegitimate.

    • cmblake6 says:

      Have been for 100 years or so.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      I think it was from monticello.org:

      The definition of tyranny is that which is legal for the government (I include the MSM as part of the permanent state) is illegal for the citizenry.

      One law for the rulers, the other law for the peasants.

  5. Bill says:

    I like the cut of this man’s jib.

  6. Russell says:

    Would you consider this an escalation in the national conflict?

    Judge Napolitano is certainly a conservative. But is he also the first, full-time, TV media host to defend the Ssecond Amendment this energetically?

    It seems other TV hosts will debate Gun Rights or point out how Gun Control advocates are wrong. But they don’t talk like this. Will we see more media pundits talk like this in the future?

    • JP Kalishek says:

      stating the truth about something in our Constitution is not the escalation, those doing the escalating are those attempting to remove Rights. Like he said, imagine the outrage if, say GWB had decided that Free Speech needs to be registered, licensed, and restricted? Although some of these same gun grabbers would be happy for some of this, they’d want it only for those they disagree with.

    • sootsme says:

      Actually, Judge Napolitano got taken off Fox for speaking too much truth. Not likely anyone else of his ilk will be given such a venue anytime soon. He alone among those easily recognizable by somewhat ordinary folks is willing to address the true implications of our INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY. Sad, but true…

  7. Bill says:

    Escalation? No. Not when Cuomo states outright that confiscation is on the table.

  8. cmblake6 says:

    Bob, I have to borrow this, link it to my readers. This is absolutely superb, and needs to be read by everyone any of us knows. I’ve got more readers at my blog than contacts at my email, so here we go!

  9. bogbeagle says:

    Mr. Napolitano is right when he says that, “Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. ”

    Let me give you an example.

    About 3 years ago, I became involved in an on-line debate with Lord Norman Tebbit (English House of Lords and former Minister). I don’t recall the subject, but the debate was held in the forum of the Daily Telegraph.

    Anyway, during the course of this, Lord Tebbit informed me that, (I paraphrase), “Parliament can make any laws it wishes and YOU must be bound only by its will. You MUST NOT exercise your conscience.”

    Even after 3 years, my blood is boiling when I think about this man’s statements.

    “They” truly believe that “they” are empowered to do anything that they want. Your role is to obey.

    • Phil says:

      Thanks for the reminder why we kicked our English overlords to the curb in the first place. As for you – shut up your serf and get back in line! Meh.

    • poetopoet says:

      It took Ireland a lot longer to do what America did because the U.S. supplied Irish relatives them with arms.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      Well, he is Lord Norman Tebbit. And people like David Gregory and Dianne Feinstein are trying real hard to obtain the same noble privilege.

  10. twolaneflash says:

    I believe Obama’s murder list has my name on it. I’m waiting, Barry. Molon labe.

    • Chris Watson says:

      You need to make weapons or have a YouTube channel and be critical of the government. Then you’ll be killed by car accident, assassination, a heart attack, stroke, suicide or ‘mysterious circumstances’

  11. Joe Mama says:

    I love that man…no, not in that way.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  12. R7 Rocket says:

    Of course, the debate about gun control ended completely when the first gun receiver was printed out of a microwave sized 3d printer.