"[It is] a natural Right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of rights, to keep arms for their own defense; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of Society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
by:
Source:
A Journal of the Times, March 27, 1769, printed May 25, 1769.
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
A sentiment in keeping with the intent of the "Right to Keep and Bear" in the spirit of those times. The Kenyan narcissist has proven that it is still just as valid today.
 -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 3
  •  
    Written in 1769 and applicable today. Some things never change.
     -- jim k, Austin, Tx     
  • 4
  •  
    Ah why do we have these quotes. Every one has guns, but why don't we stop talking about them.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 2 2
  •  
    Waffler - You are abundant in diatribes as you are lacking in common sense. A Little Gun History Lesson In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated. ------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. --------------- Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 Million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated -------------------- China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated. -------------- Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated. ------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because Of gun control: 56 million. -------------- It has now been 12 months [1996 National Agreement on Fireams] since gun owners in Australia were forced by new Law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 mill ion Dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone,homicides with firearms are now up 300 Percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the Criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too! While figures over the previous 25 years Showed a steady decrease in armed Robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 Months, since criminals now are guaranteed that t heir prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety Has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in Successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience And the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians Disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, Gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
     -- Mary - MI     
  • 6
  •  
    Waffler, for one, when we quit talking about inalienable rights, despots legislate them away. What ever happened to habeas corpus, the 9th and 10th Amendments, protection from the police and/or the police state, etc.? We stopped talking about them. What about New York, Massachusetts, California, etc., how do the individuals there have less un-infringed inalienable rights than you or me?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 4
  •  
    Mary, extremely well said, thank you !
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2
  •  
    Right On Mary!
     -- J Carlton, Carlton     
  • 1
  •  
    There was little talk about guns until Clinton actually did something about "Street Sweepers". The NRA (which is nothing more than a gun industry front organization) took him on and made a political issue out of it and people with no other particular issue to talk about picked it up. When Clinton did what he did guys like Reagan said "Well uh yeah that is just common sense." but when he was in the White House he did nothing about it.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 1
  •  
    Mary, thank you very much for the History lesson. An eye opener for those who seem not to understand, why, now, there is so much more violence on the streets. Legislators promoting laws contrary to natural law, under the guise of peace bring about lawless behaviour. Add to that illegal alien immigration from known lawless countries fuel the fire of contempt by the lawless for our lack of ability to control our own legislators. Drain the Swamp, Build the Wall, Restore commonsense law and order.
     -- Ronw13, OR     
  • 2
  •  
    To invoke genocide and massacre in defence of individual gun ownership is naïve and ignorant of the complex religious, racial, national and political factors which are the true cause of such crimes against humanity. Look to address the true causes. Are we just accepting that human violence and brutality is natural law?
     -- Mick, Manchester     
  • 2
  •  
    Good on you, Mary.
     -- jim k, Austin     
  • 1
  •  
    Mick, your erroneous premise gets lost in the fallacious conclusions and expansion of your religion. Rights are based in/at natural law (that which "IS" and can not be altered by corporeal man or his carnal gods (government, etc.) - only usurped and denied) while your religion and emotionalism creates a false narrative - only to be followed through fruition to a greater delusion.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2
  •  
    With regards to American culture it has to be five stars..
     -- robert, somewhere inthe USA     
  • 1
  •  
    Mike, I am assuming that you think my religion is secular and humanist -congratulations. I am sure your religion deems that man is stained with sin, inevitably flawed and must seek his own individual salvation in the next world. I despair at this world view. True salvation lies in peaceful and caring relationships between man and his fellow man and dismantling the beliefs and structures that prevent this, through reason and argument, until there is more that unites us than divides us. This is not a false narrative. It is hopeful and recognises man's potential and the beauty of this world. It may be deemed emotional (but not irrational) and if it is, I am proud to wear the badge.
     -- Mick, Manchester     
  • 1
  •  
    Mick, thank you for your response. I may be the most hard core believing Christian you have come across while, the religion that defines my knowledge / belief system does not follow very closely evolved Catholicism. My research and experiences are my own (with an open mind) searching original law, substance, facts, events, understandings and doctrine - not trying to rationalize or prove another's or earlier conclusions (and/or what another says). By way of example; at law - sin, transgression and iniquity are all very different issues with only some / at times, similar outcomes. Also, the word, term or concept of a "god" never developed in the original covenant language and originally, "god" was not used in the Old Testament. The Father which I worship loves His progeny, not because of what they do or don't do BUT, because of who He is - He is love. A character or attribute of love would be "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

    Its not the tool but rather, the heart (or lack thereof) that identifies the here subject violence. The old comparison between Switzerland and Honduras works well. Almost nothing is similar except the attitude, laws and training concerning guns (they being polar opposites). AND now, London's murder rate has exceeded that of New York's (with fewer guns). The more theocratic socialism progresses and other religions become politicized, the greater the violence, chaos and destruction follows.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    Mick, that is worthy world view; however, it ignores a reality that man is a wild animal and the civilization that has risen up is one of might makes right. The enlightened world view takes it further -- violence begets violence, all people should be treated with respect, we have natural-born 'rights', the violating of which having real world consequences. Realizing all this can be due to one's religion, education, desire to know 'how it all works,' upbringing -- as well, one's ignorance of this can also be due to the same. The very real need to be able to defend oneself against those who lay claim to your property, person, labors, and life cannot be ignored. You are anti-slavery? Well, how to keep yourself from being enslaved?!

    Remember, violence is the act. I may have no weapon and I may act violently. The violation/crime is the violent behavior, NOT the mode or method of violence. To possess a weapon for protection is not invoking violence at all. Just like not throwing a punch even though I have the power to do so is not violence until the punch is thrown.

    Trying to protect the people from what they MIGHT or COULD do is totalitarian -- it lays claim to the responsibility that belongs to the individual. Positivist law -- laws that dictate -- are contrary to a republican form of government. There are only statutes that can say 'you shall not do...' not 'you SHALL do ...' Recognizing the difference is the key to understanding a free and responsible People which is the foundation and premise of a free people.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2018 Liberty-Tree.ca