• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Is More Afraid? The One Who Feels He Needs a Gun? Or the One Who Doesn't?

Who is more afraid? The one who feels he needs a gun, or the one who doesn't?


  • Total voters
    36
LOL....you don't even know how lack of a clue you have with this. I'm an attorney that works in the criminal courts. Perhaps I have a little better idea of what was going on in Los Angeles than someone behind the orange curtain who really had no connection to it at all.

Were you with the DA office back in 92 ?

Were you one of those liberals who after the riots who said, "It just civil disobedience" while celebrating along with the Crips and Bloods on the streets of Los Angeles.

The only city in America that celebrated the burning of a city and the mayhem, murder, arson and looting that took place.

Los Angeles is a world class city isn't it.
 
Were you with the DA office back in 92 ?

Were you one of those liberals who after the riots who said, "It just civil disobedience" while celebrating along with the Crips and Bloods on the streets of Los Angeles.

The only city in America that celebrated the burning of a city and the mayhem, murder, arson and looting that took place.

Wow....you are full of drama today Apacherat. What's going on behind the orange curtain today that is creating all this drama with you?

No....I was not a DA, I was working as a public defender at the time. No I didn't celebrate...nor did most of the citizens of Los Angeles. Those participating in the riots and otherwise celebrating represent a miniscule percentile of the citizens that reside in Los Angeles County. But then again....why would I expect someone who hides locked behind the orange curtain to understand that?
 
Wow....you are full of drama today Apacherat. What's going on behind the orange curtain today that is creating all this drama with you?

No....I was not a DA, I was working as a public defender at the time. No I didn't celebrate...nor did most of the citizens of Los Angeles. Those participating in the riots and otherwise celebrating represent a miniscule percentile of the citizens that reside in Los Angeles County. But then again....why would I expect someone who hides locked behind the orange curtain to understand that?

So how many arsonist and looters did you defend ?

How many actually were convicted and sent to prison ?

If 90% who were arrested during the riots for looting were illegal aliens, how many were held for the INS and deported ?

Did you defend Damian "Football" Williams, the banger who smashed Reginal Denny's skull with a piece of concrete ?
 
So how many arsonist and looters did you defend ?

How many actually were convicted and sent to prison ?

If 90% who were arrested during the riots for looting were illegal aliens, how many were held for the INS and deported ?

Did you defend Damian "Football" Williams, the banger who smashed Reginal Denny's skull with a piece of concrete ?

No Arsonists
People charged with thefts from the riots - don't remember, it was so long ago, my recollection is 3 or 4
Your 90% claim here is laughable. Not even close to reality so I can't really respond to it (another drama queen moment?)
No, I did not defend Damian Williams.

Anything else you wanna know?
 
No Arsonists
People charged with thefts from the riots - don't remember, it was so long ago, my recollection is 3 or 4
Your 90% claim here is laughable. Not even close to reality so I can't really respond to it (another drama queen moment?)
No, I did not defend Damian Williams.

Anything else you wanna know?

I do have to stand corrected, like you said it was a long time ago. It was 1/3 who were arrested were illegal aliens.

But why do you think during the riots, 100 LAPD officers were deputised as Deputy U.S. Marshals ?

>“At a Cabinet meeting today, Attorney General William P. Barr said nearly one-third of the first 6,000 [Los Angeles] riot suspects arrested and processed through the court system were illegal aliens, according to a senior Administration official. Barr has not proposed any special effort to have them deported, a Justice Department spokesman said.”<
—Washington Post, May 6, 1992

https://www.vdare.com/letters/a-cal...iots-and-the-deportations-that-didnt-happen-a
 
I do have to stand corrected, like you said it was a long time ago. It was 1/3 who were arrested were illegal aliens.

But why do you think during the riots, 100 LAPD officers were deputised as Deputy U.S. Marshals ?

>“At a Cabinet meeting today, Attorney General William P. Barr said nearly one-third of the first 6,000 [Los Angeles] riot suspects arrested and processed through the court system were illegal aliens, according to a senior Administration official. Barr has not proposed any special effort to have them deported, a Justice Department spokesman said.”<
—Washington Post, May 6, 1992

https://www.vdare.com/letters/a-cal...iots-and-the-deportations-that-didnt-happen-a

That sounds much more accurate.
 
That sounds much more accurate.

I think it was that blacks were responsiable for 90% of the arson.

Just going from memory from a L.A. Times story from 1992.

You may have rememberd it, they had a map of L.A. County with a red dot representing every building that was set afire during the riots.

Remember after the riots when you drove around South L.A. and all of the immigrant communities ? Everyone was wearing brand new sneakers.

It was interesting watching it on television. The blacks first targeted the liqour stores while the illegal aliens went for the stores that had Pampers.
 
I think it was that blacks were responsiable for 90% of the arson.

Just going from memory from a L.A. Times story from 1992.

You may have rememberd it, they had a map of L.A. County with a red dot representing every building that was set afire during the riots.

Remember after the riots when you drove around South L.A. and all of the immigrant communities ? Everyone was wearing brand new sneakers.

It was interesting watching it on television. The blacks first targeted the liqour stores while the illegal aliens went for the stores that had Pampers.

BS again.....the vast majority of the people living in South LA did not participate in looting....it was a handful few that caused the problems. As for your other contention about who targeted what.....where are you pulling this stuff out of? You really do need to get out more.
 
BS again.....the vast majority of the people living in South LA did not participate in looting....it was a handful few that caused the problems. As for your other contention about who targeted what.....where are you pulling this stuff out of? You really do need to get out more.

South L.A. was just the flash point. Looting and arson was happening all over L.A. County where ever the population was dependent on government.

You may remember when the first of the month came and the welfare checks weren't being delivered because mail service was suspended, the looting and arson ended. You had mile long lines at the post offices.
 
So parents and the media are the ones teaching kids to fear guns. And how do they do this exactly? What nefarious methods are they employing? And real life events play no role in their attitude on guns at all?

Of course they are. Where else are they learning it? NOt on TV much. Home and schools with paranoid zero tolerance policies where they cant even make a gun with their fingers.

Households where they have guns and teach them to respect them, those kids arent afraid.

What, are you implying that kids are 'born' afraid of guns like some people have a fear of heights? Come on...you tell me why YOU think those kids are afraid at the very sight of a gun. I gave you my answer.


And why are you so unfamiliar with American history and the role guns played in it? And why are you ignoring my point in bringing up in the first place to counter your claims?

LOLOLOL You CLAIMED that frontier kids killed the race of people originally inhabiting this country. Do you want to stick with that? I can requote it. I said that historically people, including kids, were not afraid of guns. You gave me a non sequiter on how guns were used earlier in our history. How about you connecting those dots for me in the context of the actual discussion?



btw - I NEVER made a point saying that people who open carry have harmed others. That is not now and has never been my argument. So why in the world would I have to speak to your arguing against a strawman of your own creation? Why should I waste one second of my time providing evidence to a point that I never made in the first place?

OK, you claimed they were intentionally trying to intimidate people. And even if not intentional, people were reasonable to be intimidated by them. Why? Goes back to 'baseless and unfounded.'

Where are your examples of those guns being used to harm anyone in those public situations? People legally OCing? I mean, if there's NO HARM, then why are people irrationally intimidated?

Are you intimidated because they look cooler than you? You are intimidated by your own fear....so is the fear of harm? Or.....? you tell me.
 
By all means - when you counter my argument with anything of actual substance I will be happy to speak to it. Just please make sure it was my argument that you are countering in the first place. Do not throw something like this at me

since it was NEVER my argument in the first place.

Ok, then what is your objection to open carrying in public? You said it's intimidating. If it's not about harm, what is intimidating about it?

And also, you keep ignoring when I bring up the much larger numbers of guns around you that are concealed. So then you are not concerned about those? Why not? Because the act of concealing them means people do not wish to intimidate you?

The intimidation thing is mostly in your head, btw. I asked you if you thought my intent if I OCed around town would be to intimidate? Or if I OCed to a kid's soccer game at the town field? Or to a public meeting? (Guess you'll think yes, but hey I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

It's interesting that you cannot (seem to) imagine any other reasons why people OC. You completely dismissed comfort. Nice. Well, what makes YOUR emotional comfort any more important than my physical comfort? And there are other reasons people do so. In some cases, it's the only way they legally can in their state.
 
Where are your examples of those guns being used to harm anyone in those public situations?

I never claimed they were. That was NOT my argument against open carry and is NOT now my argument. It is your strawman of your own creation.

What, are you implying that kids are 'born' afraid of guns like some people have a fear of heights? Come on...you tell me why YOU think those kids are afraid at the very sight of a gun. I gave you my answer

I never said that either. We all learn everything we learn from ALL of our experiences in life. Singling out parents or the media - whatever that encompasses - is simply looking for a convenient scapegoat while excusing all the rest of the experiences we all have that teach us everything we have learned.

You CLAIMED that frontier kids killed the race of people originally inhabiting this country. Do you want to stick with that?

Do you understand what the term CONTEXT means? go back and read your post that I was replying to when I correctly stated events in the American west and you will see it is not what you are making of it.
 
Last edited:
Sadly all those who advocate open carry do not agree with you and as long as that motivation persists, it is a compelling reason to not allow it.

Where do you have any sources that people are open carrying for intimidation purposes? Have any interviews?

And even if there are a few assholes, why should everyone else who wishes to OC be punished? Have we seen any negative results from intentional intimidation? You mentioned children fleeing...is there proof 'intimidation' was the intent?
 
Ok, then what is your objection to open carrying in public?

My objection is a very simple one that is easy to understand. Recently we had a very well publicized event in Nevada where large numbers or rather heavily armed civilians descended in one area to help a rancher defy the American government. Some even took up sniper positions and were photographed doing it. Open carry allowed them to take the initial steps to do that. The government backed down and did not enforce the law of the land. That only invites anarchy and further defiance down the road. We have enough with the whacko's writing nonsense about a future rebellion against the government without letting these human buttwipes feel they can win using open carry as a vehicle to propel them.

That is one reason right off the front pages.

The other is perhaps more important to me because it can happen every day in every city and town in America where citizens have a right to express their opinion. This whole open carry cause celebre is very much a right wing thing. And spare me the history lesson about the Panthers back in the Sixties. It is now 2014 and we are not in Compton. For our system of government to work as it should, Americans must feel free to openly participate in the system expressing their true feelings and opinions without fear of intimidation or reprisal. When right wingers can change the very fabric of our society with open carry, people will no longer feel free or safe in defying their will and their extremism and their opinion. A dark cloud of silence will descend across the land and this is the what the far right wants. They know they are small in numbers compared to the majority so this is the only way they can "win" if that is what it can be called. Sadly, everybody else has to lose so they can win.

So there is a much more significant reason.


Where do you have any sources that people are open carrying for intimidation purposes? Have any interviews?

There are things which are painfully obvious on their face so that only a complete zealot in denial could miss them. But beyond that, the zealots of the far right love to shoot off their mouths. Right here on this very sight in the last few days a poster who pretty much is far right and almost exclusively posts ONLY in gun threads - openly replied to me stating that he wanted armed men to intimidate the people and their representatives.

here it is from poster Crimefree replying to me where I charged that intimidation of others was a motive of the open carry movement:

I have not one smidgen of doubt lying, duplicitous, excuses for human beings are so scared out of their wits they are willing to endanger the public's safety and usurp their rights so if the public should find out about their underhand and corrupt dealings they cannot become angry and take it out on them. Politicians not worthy of employment have been doing this for years in order to ensure and usurp power making sure government holds the monopoly of power.

I think Thomas Jones Whitehall diaries presents the fear of these cowards as they mislead citizens with lies and endangerment of life without so much as pausing for breath.

Politicians for once facing armed citizens in public discourse my actually tell the truth. I would love to see them quaking at every answer. The world would be a better place. All governments should fear its citizens as it is citizens task to chastise or correct them when they do wrong.

So this is not any secret.

Here is a news article on the matter played out in Texas

http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2013/11/open-carry-intimidation.html

read the article and look at the photograph.
 
Last edited:
South L.A. was just the flash point. Looting and arson was happening all over L.A. County where ever the population was dependent on government.

You may remember when the first of the month came and the welfare checks weren't being delivered because mail service was suspended, the looting and arson ended. You had mile long lines at the post offices.

You are so full of clichés and generalizations.....its really sad. The rioting only lasted a couple of days....how soon you forget. It wasn't "welfare checks being suspended" that stopped the looting...it was the fact that they finally got the national guard in. Plus.....the ones looting weren't all dependent on government. Looting is a mob mentality and a crime of opportunity. A lot of people with jobs were involved in the lootings as well.. But why would I expect you to know that? You seem content to live in your world of clichés and generalizations and myths.
 
You are so full of clichés and generalizations.....its really sad. The rioting only lasted a couple of days....how soon you forget. It wasn't "welfare checks being suspended" that stopped the looting...it was the fact that they finally got the national guard in. Plus.....the ones looting weren't all dependent on government. Looting is a mob mentality and a crime of opportunity. A lot of people with jobs were involved in the lootings as well.. But why would I expect you to know that? You seem content to live in your world of clichés and generalizations and myths.

How much looting took place in South Redondo ?

How many whites participated in the looting ?

Take a look at Hurricane Katrina. Those who were dependent on government couldn't get the **** out of Dodge when government failed. You had anarchy.

Remember the Northridge quake ? If the epicenter were have been thirty miles further to the south, you would have seen wide spread looting and anarchy and entire neighborhoods whining and bitching and saying "where's FEMA" ?

There's a segment of the population in America who have the government monkey on their backs who have become dependent on government to regulate their lives. When government fails, you have anarchy.

You have those Americans who take personal responsibility for their lives and those who depend on government.

You have those Americans who take the responsibility of arming themselves to defend and protect their families, homes and businesses and those who depend on 911.
 
My objection is a very simple one that is easy to understand. Recently we had a very well publicized event in Nevada where large numbers or rather heavily armed civilians descended in one area to help a rancher defy the American government. Some even took up sniper positions and were photographed doing it. Open carry allowed them to take the initial steps to do that. The government backed down and did not enforce the law of the land. That only invites anarchy and further defiance down the road. We have enough with the whacko's writing nonsense about a future rebellion against the government without letting these human buttwipes feel they can win using open carry as a vehicle to propel them.

That is one reason right off the front pages.

The other is perhaps more important to me because it can happen every day in every city and town in America where citizens have a right to express their opinion. This whole open carry cause celebre is very much a right wing thing. And spare me the history lesson about the Panthers back in the Sixties. It is now 2014 and we are not in Compton. For our system of government to work as it should, Americans must feel free to openly participate in the system expressing their true feelings and opinions without fear of intimidation or reprisal. When right wingers can change the very fabric of our society with open carry, people will no longer feel free or safe in defying their will and their extremism and their opinion. A dark cloud of silence will descend across the land and this is the what the far right wants. They know they are small in numbers compared to the majority so this is the only way they can "win" if that is what it can be called. Sadly, everybody else has to lose so they can win.

So there is a much more significant reason.




There are things which are painfully obvious on their face so that only a complete zealot in denial could miss them. But beyond that, the zealots of the far right love to shoot off their mouths. Right here on this very sight in the last few days a poster who pretty much is far right and almost exclusively posts ONLY in gun threads - openly replied to me stating that he wanted armed men to intimidate the people and their representatives.

here it is from poster Crimefree replying to me where I charged that intimidation of others was a motive of the open carry movement:



So this is not any secret.

Here is a news article on the matter played out in Texas

New Trajectory: "Open Carry" Intimidation

read the article and look at the photograph.

Wow, well thanks for being honest (I dont completely believe that, I think you are avoiding the whole 'intimidation thing for ordinary day to day situations.)

Anyway, altho I disagree with the rancher and those that formed up to support him AND the govt's very poor response, those that came armed to support the rancher believed that they were doing EXACTLY what the 2A was meant to enable.....resistance to govt tyranny. If they were 'complete zealots', they certainly restrained themselves, didnt they? Again, you fear so many 'what if' situations but back them up with little.

It's a lame excuse on your part anyway, just IMO. But anyway, that is EXACTLY why I support the 2A at its most basic and try to take a very strong stance against any further restrictions on gun ownership.

The bold is actually kind of sickening. No one is doing this (except occasionally OCing to actual gun rights demonstrations). It is fear for fear's sake.


And you never answered me regarding, if people were out to intimidate....if that was important to gun owners...there are many many states where OC is legal, no permit required. Why dont we see it more? Why dont we see it all the time?

Edit: LOL! I cant believe I didnt catch on to this sooner but the part I bolded made it obvious. Because of your previous work and location, you actively feared this. You were probably surrounded by others who feared it, had to deal with the metal detectors, the demonstrations outside, etc. This is a big fear for you because it had a prominent place in *your individual experience.* Hey...get a little professional help to gain some perspective. Everything you write is very speculative.
 
Last edited:
So parents and the media are the ones teaching kids to fear guns. And how do they do this exactly? What nefarious methods are they employing? And real life events play no role in their attitude on guns at all?

You might have heard of this guy:


"I've also asked people who have influence over youngsters, entertainers, athletes to be involved in this program as well. But not only them, community leaders. Jesse Jackson, Mayor Barry, people who have credibility with young people should be on the television, on the radio, as much as we possibly can telling these young people that its wrong to carry a gun and if they have information about people who are carrying guns you've got to share that with Chief Thomas and with his people as well. I've also asked the school board to make a part of every day some kind of anti-violence, anti-gun message. Every day, every school at every level. One thing I think is clear with young people and with adults as well is that we just have to be repetitive about this. Its not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and really BRAINWASH people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." - The Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Eric Holder.

Insulting me does not negate a single thing I said. All it does is give evidence that you have no argument against my points.

The 2nd Amendment is enough argument against your anti-liberty points. Also, don't you ever find it curious how everyone always insults you?

And why are you so unfamiliar with American history and the role guns played in it?

We won our independence with them, an act I'm sure you find abhorrent. You'd have made a great Tory.
 
Last edited:
You might have heard of this guy:

"I've also asked people who have influence over youngsters, entertainers, athletes to be involved in this program as well. But not only them, community leaders. Jesse Jackson, Mayor Barry, people who have credibility with young people should be on the television, on the radio, as much as we possibly can telling these young people that its wrong to carry a gun and if they have information about people who are carrying guns you've got to share that with Chief Thomas and with his people as well. I've also asked the school board to make a part of every day some kind of anti-violence, anti-gun message. Every day, every school at every level. One thing I think is clear with young people and with adults as well is that we just have to be repetitive about this. Its not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and really BRAINWASH people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." - The Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Eric Holder.


The 2nd Amendment is enough argument against your anti-liberty points. Also, don't you ever find it curious how everyone always insults you?



We won our independence with them, an act I'm sure you find abhorrent. You'd have made a great Tory.


I know. Haymarket seems to imply that kids are born afraid of guns like it's a fear of heights or something. They are not. Kids LEARN to fear OR respect guns. And most of that comes from parents and school policies. They play plenty of violent video games.....they dont fear guns...they follow an adults lead out in public. I'm sure in the example he gave of the kids being so fearful that they were observing their chaparones and the chaparones scared them. I'd place a bet on it.
 
Wow, well thanks for being honest (I dont completely believe that, I think you are avoiding the whole 'intimidation thing for ordinary day to day situations.)

Anyway, altho I disagree with the rancher and those that formed up to support him AND the govt's very poor response, those that came armed to support the rancher believed that they were doing EXACTLY what the 2A was meant to enable.....resistance to govt tyranny. If they were 'complete zealots', they certainly restrained themselves, didnt they? Again, you fear so many 'what if' situations but back them up with little.

No they did not. They took up arms against the federal government and should have been arrested and prosecuted for the offense.


And you never answered me regarding, if people were out to intimidate....if that was important to gun owners...there are many many states where OC is legal, no permit required. Why dont we see it more? Why dont we see it all the time?

I gave you several examples. One is too many and one American suffering intimidation is too many.
 
I know. Haymarket seems to imply that kids are born afraid of guns like it's a fear of heights or something. They are not. Kids LEARN to fear OR respect guns. And most of that comes from parents and school policies. They play plenty of violent video games.....they dont fear guns...they follow an adults lead out in public. I'm sure in the example he gave of the kids being so fearful that they were observing their chaparones and the chaparones scared them. I'd place a bet on it.

If you know of a study which documents this claim of yours I will be glad to see it. I already stated that ones fears and feelings come from a very wide set of experiences that do include family and media but encompass much much more in their lives.
 
The 2nd Amendment is enough argument against your anti-liberty points. Also, don't you ever find it curious how everyone always insults you?



We won our independence with them, an act I'm sure you find abhorrent. You'd have made a great Tory.

We won our independence from a foreign nation colonizing us.

And I know why others here insult me. Limited debate skills, small minds, ideological zealotry identifying me as the enemy of right libertarianism and an inability to back up their own claims so they get angry and resort to childish insults.
 
No they did not. They took up arms against the federal government and should have been arrested and prosecuted for the offense.




I gave you several examples. One is too many and one American suffering intimidation is too many.

That is such bull****. Like people have to be responsible for other people's feelings now. "Oh, if one child is hit by a car, all cars should be banned!" Even that makes more sense since actual harm is caused.

And you may ignore it, but that's exactly what those ranchers believed they were doing (not the scofflaw). The 2A was created EXACTLY for that purpose. What do YOU think the purpose of the 2A is?
 
Last edited:
If you know of a study which documents this claim of yours I will be glad to see it. I already stated that ones fears and feelings come from a very wide set of experiences that do include family and media but encompass much much more in their lives.

How do you think they become afraid? Are they born afraid? Of course not. Does actual contact with guns make them afraid? Nope, that's not the case either.

So the 2 main influences are parents and schools and schools have rabidly anti-gun policies. TV? I dont know, there's an awful lot of good guys on TV too that have guns. Lots of violent video games. Parents can control both of those too, btw.

So....do you have any theories on how kids become afraid of guns?
 
No they did not. They took up arms against the federal government and should have been arrested and prosecuted for the offense.

.

That's the purpose of the Second Amendment Haymarket.

Thomas Jefferson Quotes :

>"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.

In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance..."<

Continue -> The Greatest Thomas Jefferson quotes
 
Back
Top Bottom