Neither did Alton Sterling or Philando Castile. Or Eric Garner or Michael Brown or John Crawford or Jonathan Sanders or Sandra Bland or Tamir Rice or Eric Harris or Walter Scott or Jonathan Ferrell or Samuel DuBose or Trayvon Martin.
I wonder why these people got killed and the Bundys didn’t. If only there was some common factor that linked all of them…
I’m ex military. And a liberal activist. But I don’t have a gun.
Wow. The “power elites” (Jews, I would imagine) are in league with Marxists and Islamists. I wasn’t aware there were any Marxists around anymore to speak of, let alone that the current crop had aligned themselves with a movement that wants to establish a theocracy. That’s something I would not have expected. Learn something new every day.
Oh, oh, can I guess? They were all criminals and thugs, whereas the Bundy clan are good churchgoin’ patriots?
(Wait, I feel like you’re going somewhere even simpler than that…) :sardonicwinksmiliewhichshouldtotallybeathing:
That was exactly my thought. And this:
was indeed said by someone, specifically, by an asshole. Thomas Jefferson may have been brilliant and may have had one of the best political minds in history, but he was a fuckin asshole. He said this about Shay’s Rebellion, in which a bunch of impoverished and desperate farmers, losing their lands due to crazy-high taxes voted in by the merchants who controlled the legislature, rebelled against what they saw as taxation without representation.
Note what Jefferson said just before that quote:
Those five officers killed? What, Jefferson asks, do a few lives signify?
Asshole.
I completely agree and am glad that Micah Johnson was stopped, before he could murder more innocent police officers, for his use of 2nd amendment solutions.
My thoughts and prayers go out to you.
Interesting idea. Let’s apply it some other cases:
Islam, the religion, is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
BLM is responsible for the cop killings yesterday.
Alternatively, we can blame the folks who actually did the killing. Or would that be too inconvenient, politically?
A crazy person said that
Eh. He didn’t say “Every time some nuts go around killing people, it’s a good thing”. In the times he lived, it was true enough. It may not be as common going forward, but I’d be surprised if it never happened again.
You left out the Rand Corporation, the saucer people, and the reverse vampires.
Then again, TJ (who tends to be revered by the likes of the Oath Breakers and other wannabe warriors of a fantasy nation that never was) has as his masterwork and letter of presentation a document justifying armed insurrection. So he felt pretty much committed to maintaining a position that such is part of the natural order of things, and that the role of the established state when faced with that would be “to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them”. I get the feeling he did not mean through academic debate.
The deal here and now is of course a part of all these debates: what is the point at which you have valid armed resistance or people’s revolution, instead of criminal terrorism or just some wackos acting out? The cynics say once they win and get to write the story. But let’s be honest, what happens if the uprising against the Oppressive State happens NOT among the “Minutemen”, Oath Breakers, Free Land people, Restorationists, etc. but among urban minorities? The “Patriots” are going to be standing right by the side of the “Evil Government” to crush that uprising, is what will happen.
Jefferson’s theory of revolution in greater detail. Emphasis added, context included. [INDENT][INDENT]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [/INDENT][/INDENT]