"Of course, the proponents of political tyranny are usually well-motivated. Those who enacted the gun-registration law in California point to criminals who have used semiautomatic weapons to commit horrible, murderous acts. But the illusion -- the pipe dream -- is that bad acts can be prevented by the deprivation of liberty. They cannot be! Life is always insecure. The only choice is between liberty and insecurity, on the one hand, and insecurity and enslavement on the other. The true patriot scrutinizes the actions of his own government with unceasing vigilance. And when his government violates the morality and rightness associated with principles of individual freedom and private property, he immediately rises in opposition to his government. This is why the gun owners of California might ultimately go down in history as among the greatest and most courageous patriots of our time."
by:
Jacob G. Hornberger
(1950- ) American author, journalist, politician, founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation
Source:
Gun Control, Patriotism and Civil Disobedience, Pamphlet published by International Society for Individual
Liberty.
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Registration is a the precursor to confiscation (it has no other purpose). And if we look at history, confiscation is the precursor to genocide.
 -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 1
  •  
    Recent history shows that the Nazis used gun registration to eventually confiscate the registered guns and execute their owners.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
  •  
    Extremely well said ! I was in LA during a riot when certain individuals guarded their and their neighbor's property from roof tops and anywhere else they could - heavily armed (semi-auto, auto, and more) The fascist police would not do anything about it.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  

    Gun control in germany began after WW1 with the weimar republic not with nazi Germany

    this trope has been debunked many times, do your research 

    Yes in 1938 jews were banned from owning weapons but many had left germany by then 

    to say that the 200 thousand jews left in Germany could have stopped hitler's so called final solution is just more NRA BS 

    i believe in the second amendment, i own a gun, i also believe in facts and the truth , don't spread falsehoods to defend your position on gun rghts 


     -- Ralph, Port st lucie     
  • 3
  •  
    Ralph, where did you get your truth and facts? Your spelling is a little off also. Six million is not spelled 200 thousand. The term "many" is an arbitrary figure that doesn't begin to describe the number of Jews that left and/or stayed. The U.S.'s policy at the time was to block any Jews that wanted to migrate. Growing up, my parents had "many" friends that survived the camps (tattooed numbers and all). I've heard personally at least 10 different individuals stories - in detail, of the atrocities. To a person that I spoke with, all said they were taught that their social responsibility was to do what the government told them to do. The same societal message is strongly adhered to by Jews in today's hard core Woke Progressive jurisdictions. All of the six million would not have fought back even if each and every would have had automatic weapons; AND, you are partially correct, the Weimar Republic did have a gun control but the Nazi's all out ban was much more severe.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    The sooner you drop your weapons the sooner you will pick up your wits.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 2
  •  
    (-: Nit — "wits" are inseparably the dupes of an elitest class, slavery, poverty, violence and theocracies of mental illness. :-) Those who chose civil applications of individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, natural law, justice, peace and prosperity accept the personal responsibility of weapon ownership.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    Only criminals make use of firearms.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  
    Law abiding citizenry carry with them their belief in humanity. 
    They bring with them, at all times, the belief that a reasonable solution is always attainable. They know a nonviolent alternative is there. Law abiding citizens have no use for firearms. Law abiding citizens believe in win/win solutions.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 2
  •  
    https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1327/
     -- Ralph, Port st lucie     
  •  
    Shooting someone can never be an answer.  Firearms are not liberty at all.  They are form of mind constriction.  They are the reflection of a very immature, limited mentality with not the least semblance of creativity.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  
    Sillik, from your mentally ill god complex, your word salad; "only criminals make use of firearms" is almost a little bit accurate in a very small select focus. Your word salad definitions (from your personally fallacious dictionary for mentally ill dupes) does not reflect “law” or reality. Your “criminal” here is simply, one who commits a crime. First, what is a crime? "A crime is an offence against a public law." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary) Continuing; within the context of and defining what a “Public law” is - “public” means; “the whole body politic,” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary); AND, “Law” is “In its most general and comprehensive sense, law signifies a rule of action; and this term is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action; whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Law, within the de jure States united is “the law of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). The laws of nature and of nature’s God; is/are, a self evident truth / (Nature’s Law) - i.e., - “LAW” is a tangible element’s applied static measurement within a domain of absolutes (biology, chemistry, physics / science, fiscal / economics, gravity, math, magnetics, life, liberty, rights, etc). Next; a fire arm is a tool that may be used lawfully for defense, an implement for providing food, etc. (the list is long). Further, in a broader sense, philosophies of men (in Sillik’s case: religion of men) such as “legal positivism”, “legal realism”, “maritime law”, etc. are all “ARBITRARY” enforcements within an atmosphere of totalitarian enslavement. “An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) - “the nature of things” is founded in / from “nature’s law”. Sillik, I will write this real slow so that even you may grasp it (mmmm probably not). A “criminal” is a desultory designation to a party that has gone contrary to a capricious body politic’s arbitrary will (socialism by example); NOT necessarily breaking a law of nature. A party may brake the “law” by using a firm arm in the commission of an unlawful act (murder, theft, etc.) “BUT”, that does not automatically go to a body politic’s definition of a crime. A jury within the de jure States united has the authority to determine fact and “law” beyond the legislator’s domain.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    Sillik, what law are you referencing (a legislator's arbitrary will, a societal custom, or ?)  A reasonable person brings with him/her (not a them), at all times, the knowledge that nonviolent alternatives are NOT always attainable. By example: Socialism's capitally enforced anti-natural religious dogma that: individual inalienable rights do not exist OR, the religion of socialism's dogmas supersede nature's law / science OR, liberty only exist by the gods of socialism's current needs.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  

    Sillik, I was wondering, touting your religious convictions, how does it feel to be wrong the vast majority of the time? Liberty is; “The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Liberty is the “exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. Liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1st ed.). Clarifying original fact, nature’s law intent, and de jure jurisprudence: liberty is; “The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Thomas Jefferson) “The Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man, but to have only the Law of Nature for his Rule.” (John Locke - second most quoted source for creation of the Constitution) “Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ⋯ and is regarded as inalienable.” (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987). “In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism - including, of course legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?” (Frederic Bastiat) Liberty, under “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence) – nature’s law, is the state of exercising all inalienable rights. “All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” (George Mason) “Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint; the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have.” (Daniel Webster) “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” (James 2:12) For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Galatians 5:16) “Where liberty is, there is my country” (Benjamin Franklin). Eternally Devine priesthood is a government of liberty.

    So, your word salad definition from your personally fallacious dictionary for mentally ill dupes is wrong again. Within all legal, societal and otherwise actual definitions of liberty, your: religious dogma of: “Firearms are not liberty at all.” Is antithetical to reality.


     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    Hello Mike,,Norwalk
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  •  
    The elimination of firearms, as well as the privately controlled automobile, would be quite emancipating from an advanced consciousness standpoint. 
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  
    Well Mike,Norwalk, I have to admit I am in error quite frequently, forget items, misinterpret, whatever the case may be, this stems from the desire of the progressive and advanced searching mind to move forward into to unfamiliar. 
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  
    And Mike, Norwalk, to pay much more credence to the rest of your literary obesity is to overvalue the credentials of the severely mentally impaired who have an intense over-preoccupation interest to waste one's time.  My interest and preoccupation are to broader minds, the creative, the healthy mentality, so for now, ta-ta. 
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  

    observe to proof?


     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  
    Sillik, you are at least, if nothing else, a consistent mentally ill child. As I've stated before, when a child / very immature other is caught, they change the subject  hoping to not have the light shine so brightly on their oops. You are the poster child for such. Above, I proved at fact and law your god complex / religious banter to be wrong. Simply changing the subject will not excuse you lying in the future (now that you proven the truth).
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Mike, Norwalk, I have absolutely no desire to evade any subject, but to acquire the utmost verifiable legitimate clarification on any topic. 
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  
     
    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

    © 1998-2025 Liberty-Tree.ca