"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
by:
L. Neil Smith
American writer
Source:
The Probability Broach
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Neil is a bit over the top, but he is rarely wrong. Excellent author.
 -- DC, Austin, TX     
  •  
     -- Anonymous      
    Pelosi,Waxman,Reed,Obama, and the other Marxists infesting the government are working day and night to disarm all U.S. citizens, except for cops and other government agents.
     -- jim k, Austin,Tx     
  •  
    jim k has clearly taken drugs of some form to be so clearly hallucinating... "A well regulated Militia" is not lawlessly handing heavy weaponry out to every street thug who wants to kill kill kill... get a grip people, learn to read and (gasp) think...
     -- Anonymous, Reston, VA, US     
  •  
    Beware Hillary and her anti-American UN small arms treaty. Vote her out.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    I've never heard such rubbish in all my life. There is only one purpose for weapons and that is to kill and maim. We have a society hundreds of years older than the US and we don't carry guns, we don't murder our own people with capital punishment and hopefully now the UK will stop following America around the world as its viscious dog pet. Democracy? Don't make me laugh.
     -- R. Broadhurst, United Kingdom     
  •  
    Typical knee jerk liberal reaction from Komrad Anonymous. As to Broadhurst , his comments are almost to silly to reply to, but I'll try. Look moron, when all the law abiding citizens turn in their guns, do you think criminals will turn theirs in. If a burglar knows you keep a shotgun in your home and your neighbor doesn't, which house do you think he will pick to rob. I don't think someone from a country as fouled up as England needs to be lecturing Americans.
     -- jim k, Austin,Tx     
  •  
    Our weapons are the very thing that prevent us from falling in to a dictatorship. Our government knows we can fight back.
     -- cal, lewisville, tx     
  •  
    My grandpa told me that quickness and surprise are better that brute force. He may have owned a .22 riffle. I do not own a gun, but why should I want my friends to disarm.
     -- Wayne, Naples     
  •  
    Nonsense. Guns having nothing to do with governance in this country. Anyone who believes that is living in a fairyland of their own making. We do have a weapon that can be used against government, however, and that is THE VOTE. Guns are okay for self defense, hunting etc. but where do guys get off by claiming they some how protect us from government. Government which in the USA is us is what protects us.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    Guns level the playing field in the absence of government.
     -- Justin, Elkland     
  •  
    I carry my gun everywhere I go.
     -- James H, Independence,MO     
  •  
    Mr Broadhurst, you can come down off your high horse. The U.S. has been protecting Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and Japan for over 50 years. American international military welfare coupled with debt spending has been converted by the U.K. into social welfare, which has turned the poor of your country into little less than fat dumb cattle. How much civil unrest will there be in Britain when the government grain starts to dry up? Ask Athens.
     -- Justin, Elkland     
  •  
    Waffler, where do they get off? probably just about anywhere they want to. The weapon to be used against govt is the vote? What if the vote doesn't work waffler?what if all else fails overnight. let's talk about all those enemies (foreign or domestic) who leave reasonably or just plain old refuse to leave
     -- Anon     
  •  
    I knew self administerd loathing had to be in there somewhere.
     -- Anon     
  •  
    Vote and guns are equally important, in my opinion. The Founding Fathers wanted so and they know best for all times.
     -- Elisabeth, Astoria, NY     
  •  
    What would really happen if a group of people decided the US government had to be overthrown and tried to achieve this by force? Of course - and rightly so - government forces would do their best to quash this attempt. If a majority of the people in a democracy objects against the government's politics it does not and should not use violence but elect a new government in due time. Smith's assumption just does not apply to democracies. Weapons are alright for many things, self-defense and hunting among them. Fighting against dictatorships is certainly one of their best uses, but usually armed single men stand no chance against powerful dictators. These can usually only be beaten by a well-organized and efficient armed force or when a dictator no longer manages to suppress the populace efficiently enough.
     -- Cado, Hamburg     
  •  
    Too true Cado. Only rarely has a people been able to throw off the chains of government with force of arms. A patient man waits for the gluttonous beast to die of natural causes, then fights against the creation of a new beast.
     -- Justin, Elkland     
  •  
    I'm not going to abuse my intelligence by answering these ridiculous affirmations of violence. Cado and Broadhurst please don't be intimidated by this rhetoric - you think a trillion dollar army plus all the mercenaries on their payroll will allow an army of Hillbillies to overthrow the government and the their corporate masters. Even if the government was to fall and there is total anarchy they would start off by killing each other first and then take over what little left there will be. Absolutely laughable. By the way you history buffs, America only came into WWll because they were forced in to it and even then it was two years late in doing so. Now their wars are for resources - don't be so blind. US has has bases in 120 country's and over 700 overseas bases - who the hell are you kidding - do your homework before commenting. By all means have your guns but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending they are to protect you against the government. Europe has the best standard of living in the world and the best health care.
     -- RBESRQ     
  •  
    P.s. Oops I forgot, because you have all these guns protecting you you still have the worse crime rate in the western industrial world (sorry America is no longer industrial) that turned the criminals into big business for the corporations.
     -- RBESRQ     
  •  
    RBE please clarify how Europe has the best standard of living in the world and the best health care. Personal liberty and social mobility are near non-existant in most of Europe. European health care is predicated on rationing and plagued by doctor shortages, sub-standard care, and unsustainable debt loading. The european socialist model is one of repeated failure.
     -- Justin, Elkland     
  •  
    Justin, I'm afraid you will have to do your homework your self - the list is very long.
     -- RBESRQ     
  •  
    Once disarmed liberty is lost. It is a historic fact. This country is marching in the direction under the leadership in DC to a population of serfs. We have weak men and whiny women. Self-responsibility, self-reliance, self-sufficiency=self-respect. Who will stand? Not most of you here...you are too narrow minded to see the whole picture. Government has been removing liberties since 1915...and 2012 is the goal...who will stand? Not most of you. You didn't grow up into real adults; you need a government wet nurse. Shame on you. I will stand...for my country, for my Constitution...and I am a very old woman...but I have seen what has happened in this world...you are in for a very rude awakening. Once disarmed, liberty is lost.
     -- Abigail, Newport     
  •  
    Jim K, you know we're right. An we know England is a nation of dependant sheep / slaves.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    Cado in Hamburg, the US is not a democracy. It's a Republic.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    J Carlton: So what's the difference when even James Madison, a Founding Father, 'defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy, and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".' (Wikipedia) Do you think America is no democracy because it is a Republic? There is no contradiction in these terms. It is a Republic and a democracy and was always intended to be both.
     -- Cado, Hamburg     
  •  
     -- Anonymous      
    Cado, you are absolutely wrong. By way of example: "The general object was to produce a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." (Edmund Randolph; Virginia delegate at the Constitutional Convention) The American Republic was to be a government of law (discovery of God given absolute natural law and passing codes, regulations, rules, statutes, etc in harmony therewith) while a democracy is a government of the most powerful (a democracy fain claims the ability to make law - it can not / gravity, fiscal laws, etc. all remain outside man's political abilities) When there are guns in the hands of the sovereign individuals, even the greatest powers on earth can't subdue them (such as the US and Russia have experienced in Afghanistan)
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Great to have someone with your insight and knowledge on board Cado. I have been trying to tell these guys like Jim K and Carlton that the USA is a democratic republic for ever and ever. They are thick headed, thick headed indeed. And Mike's idea of a government of law is that it somehow falls out of the sky, denying the fact that all of our law came from the hands and minds of men from the very beginning of the Declaration and Constitution. The hands of the majority of men anyway. He would rather be ruled my a minority which is to say a dictator. The working of the vote is guaranteed Anon. The Constitution guarantees a "Republican form" of government to the States. No state has ever been taken over by a dictator or King. The FBI routinely investigates political corruption and vote fraud throughout the nation. What I think you suggest Anon is the right of an individual to decide for himself whether or not the vote works (in other words whether or not he gets his own way) and then resort to his guns. In a correctly function vote system it always works.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    I think it is funny how Brits and Germans think disarming the populace is good for the country. LOL! If it weren't for American military might, both these countries would be fascist dictatorships! If the German citizen hadn't been disarmed, Hitler's takeover of the country could never have happened -- are we who advocate the right to bear arms to be duped as well by our own socialists? America has NEVER been a democracy. Why? The 'Father of the Constitution' James Madison said, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” The word 'democracy' does not appear even once in the US Constitution or any of the State Constitutions. America is founded upon 'The Rights of Man' -- rights recognized as inherent and inalienable, a faculty of birth and life itself -- they are not up for vote! And for you anti-gun Brits, the right to bear arms WAS a British right that preceded the American colonies -- the fact that it has been lost by the UK citizens (who are subjects of the Crown still) should serve as an example of their government's efforts to keep you down and never questioning the will of your monarch. I will concede, however, that when the American people are disarmed and their government is armed to the teeth, the government will do what both England and Germany tried to do when their military power was great -- try to take over the world! ;-) At least if the American people remain armed, the politicians still have to worry a little bit about not pissing of the people. Brits and Germans have no recourse but to submit -- but that is the form of their government, the people are servants to the government, not the other way around.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    And BTW Waffler, you have NEVER tried to convince the rest of us that the USA is a democratic-republic -- we have been telling YOU! And a democratic-republic is not a democracy -- there is a difference, and that difference is what WE have been trying to tell YOU all these years. A republic is governed by law -- some of which law is not up for vote as in our natural born rights. In a democracy, it is but majority rule without limit.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Archer is full of S^%$ Cado keep a careful eye on him!
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    Its a bit funny, Archer and I use Founding Father's quotes to explain how the founders hated democracy and set up a government that would not tolerate it. Then Waffler says be careful of Archer. hmmmm? ? ?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Mike at least Archer has progressed (not to be confused with progressive) to the point he admits even if grudgingly that America was founded as a "democratic republic". Then he goes on to betray his weak attemt at progress by saying, "a democratic republic is not a democracy". What total BS Archer generally spews! At least he is trying if only minutely to think for himself but Mike you have not even approached the starting blocks. In fact I think you are walking away from them in the opposite direction, totally afraid of the idea of thinking.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    I would say that finally Waffler has admitted that the US Constitution establishes a republican form of government -- and even if he didn't, it wouldn't change the fact. I am willing to say that a democratic-republic is a fair enough statement as even Jefferson's party was called the Democratic-Republican Party. But the FORM of government is REPUBLICAN not democratic as republican means that USA is to be governed by 'law' and not 'men.' The founders understood the distinction, but apparently it is lost on Waffler. A democracy is a government ruled by the majority or more specifically 'men' who have been elected by a majority vote but not necessarily the majority of the people. Without a limit (law) to what may be voted upon, then there is essentially no law except majority opinion. Truth by consensus is hardly republican.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    The Constitution allows men, okay a supermajority of men, or from the opposite side, a small minority, to keep from changing the law to suit themselves. I refer of course to the right to Amend the Constitution to say anyting we wish it to. That requires 2/3 of the states, etcetera. We thus may be a conservative democracy, that is not always or even often a 51 percent democracy but we are still a republic of people, men and we have the same inalienable rights as our founders to have views, opinions and the right to make and change law. Not all changes in law require the supermajority rule that only applies to Constitutional Amendments. We are a republic that is a democracy (of sorts).
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    By jove, I think Waffler is starting to get it. Let's be more specific about the 'democratic' parts to the republican form of government established by the US Constitution. First, presidents are not elected by popular vote, they are elected by the Electoral College -- the qualifications for electors is set by each state, and it is a changing process, but none-the-less, the popular vote is not the vote that is counted. Originally the Senators were appointed by the Governors of their respective States, but the Reconstruction Amendments changed it to popular vote. Legislation not only must pass 51% or 2/3rds majorities in some cases, but the president has the power of veto -- again, not a democracy although there is some voting going on. The 1st through 12th Amendments to the Constitution specifically state what laws Congress may NOT pass -- thus the objects of vote are restricted by what are considered 'inalienable' rights, rights that are a function of birth itself -- if an individual has any 'rights,' he/she already has them in a state of Nature. It is a Declaration defended by blood and treasure, and the claims by the Crown upon the People were broken forever. No vote can take away the rights of man. The Founders based the foundation of their new republic on these principles -- and no one can vote them away unless 3/4 of the States in the Union go mad. SO any attempted usurpation by government in the name of the 'general welfare' will be met with resistance no matter what the mob's size is -- without Amending the Constitution, it is usurpation and treason. The tyranny of the majority is no less brutal than a dictatorship -- that is why the structure of government was designed to make that impossible. But when the government polices itself on following the rules of the People, it does not appear there is any recourse for the People -- they have put the fox in charge of the hen house and the only choices allowed on the ballot are different color foxes. That's where 'democracy' fails and where republican principles are supposed to protect us from over-reaching government. Then there is the issue of jurisdiction -- the federal jurisdiction has limits, as does the State and County jurisdictions. When all are usurped by the entity with the most power, true republican government is no more.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
     -- Roland, Bonner's Ferry      
     -- Ronw13, Yachats Or      
     
    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

    © 1998-2020 Liberty-Tree.ca