I’M READY TO GIVE UP MY GUNS — BUT I HAVE A COMMON SENS CONDITION

I’ve seen the light.  I am ready to give up my guns, but I have a common sens condition first.  I’ll call it the Tyranny Protocol.  Here’s how it will work.

Before anyone gives up their guns, all gun control advocates — individual citizens included — politicians, police chiefs, sheriffs, Congressmen and Senators, the President and his cabinet and all military personnel must accept an implant around their spinal column at the base of their neck.  This implant is going to make sure these people never turn on the People.  It is only common sens.

All future politicians, police and police chiefs/sheriffs and military personnel must also accept this implant.  If they refuse, the implants in all current and former ‘public servants’ will terminate their hosts.  This will give the ‘public servants’ a strong motivation to police themselves.  It’s only common sens.

These implants will never be removed.  In fact, we’ll use bio-technology to design them in such a way that, if anyone even tries to remove them, they will terminate their host.  This makes sure no one turns on the People after they leave office.  It is only common sens.

These implants will be controlled by the Internet, and will have a fail-safe program in them that will prevent anyone from trying to seize them or shut down the internet.  If they lose connection to the internet, the implants will terminate their host.  This will prevent the government from over-riding the Tyranny Protocol.  It’s only common sens.

The internet will forever remain in control of the People.  This way, the People will be able to retain a way to defend themselves against tyranny without being armed.  Again, it’s just common sens.  Who could object to protecting the People from another Hitler, Stalin or Mao?

NOW HERE IS THE CATCH:

If anyone — just one person — is killed after our guns are given up, ANY PRIVATE CITIZEN CAN INITIATE THE TYRANNY PROTOCOL!  Go to a web site, click a button and all implants immediately terminate their host.  I mean, this is only common sens.  If you are going to force me to give up my right to self-defense in return for a promise that you will protect me, then you must be absolutely perfect.  If one citizen is killed, you should die as well  See?  It’s just common sens.

This way, the People can make sure the government actually keeps its promise to protect them.  I mean, if the government is going to demand we give up our right to self-defense while it keeps that right for itself and promises that they will protect us after they have said they have no Constitutional duty to do so, the Tyranny Protocol is just common sens.  Without a protection like this one, only a mad-man would surrender his right to self-defense to people who refuse to disarm, themselves, and then use the law to excuse themselves from their duties and insulate themselves from any ramifications.

OK, gun-grabbers; police officer, military, politicians: I’m ready to give you my guns.  Are you ready to receive your implant?  O:-)

22 thoughts on “I’M READY TO GIVE UP MY GUNS — BUT I HAVE A COMMON SENS CONDITION

  1. Reblogged this on THE ROAD TO CONCORD and commented:

    This is from a blog where I write as a guest blogger. I invite you to read it. No matter what side of the gun control issue we might be on, if we are being honest about our position, this post suggests a solution that should satisfy everyone.

  2. Absolutely.

    But, this protocol should truly protect us from Tyranny. Our Founding Fathers truly feared Tyranny in many forms. To include the Tyranny of the masses. To really protect ourselves we must insure everyone that could become a Tyrant in the Democracy, to include a majority of the people, should be included.

    Everyone citizen that achieves the age of majority should received the chip. That way if the masses are ever tempted to wield their power to oppress the few they will feel their wraith!

    Let the minority declare loudly while pressing the button “SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!”

    • How does one oppress others when they have been forced to surrender their weapons? Maybe our gun-control friends can explain this to us? O:-)

      (I hope my implication came through OK 😉 )

      • Your question only portrays a deep lack of understanding of Tyranny on your part.

        One does not need weapons to oppress someone. I’m sure I can give you a through understand by meeting you alone in a back alley. Show up alone by yourself and unarmed and I’ll bring 9 friends. I’ll show you force without “Arms”.

        But, that aside, your question still shows you have a poor understanding of Government tyranny and thinking it can only come at the end of a gun. How about taxation? Unlawful seizure of property. You need only wake-up one day and find your bank account seized without due process. Or, not counting someones vote, therefore depriving them of a say in the Government.

        You need to think more than speak.

        • No lack of understanding here. You missed the point (which is why I asked if it came through — so those who DO understand would recognize I trapped me a tyrant when one replied as you have 🙂 )..

          Now, let us explain YOUR fallacies here. You are going to use ‘force without arms?’ Fine. Then I must assume, this means you are going to use words to ‘oppress’ me. I assure you, your words will not oppress me. You see, under the law, ‘arms’ means anything used to assault another person,. In this case, that would be your hands, arms, feet, etc. That’s a weapon, so unless you are going to attack without anything more than words, you have offered a fallacious objection.

          And there’s the trap 🙂

          If you can still harm another without using a firearm, then why would you demand that anyone give up the one thing that would give them a decent chance to resist you and your 9 friends in that alley?

          Well, the answer is simple, of course: YOU DO NOT WANT TO FEEL THREATENED WHILE YOU ARE ASSAULTING YOUR VICTIM!

          Oh, sorry, I see you added other examples, like taxation and seizure. OK, I give.

          NO! WAIT! If the government cannot use anything but words to compel me, then why would I give them my money or property? DUH! I wouldn’t.

          The thing YOU forget (or more likely refuse to acknowledge) is that THERE IS A GUN BEHIND THAT TAXATION AND PROPERTY SEIZURE! And, as you have already demonstrated, the reason the govt. would want our guns is the same reason you’d want them: so it cannot be challenged when it attacks us.

          Thanks, Bret,. but I can see I think just fine. You, however, might want to practice your own advice. You are stopping on the surface of every issue, and that shows a complete lack of understanding/control over logic/reason.

          • ” In this case, that would be your hands, arms, feet, etc. That’s a weapon, so unless you are going to attack without anything more than words, you have offered a fallacious objection.”

            I guess someone doesn’t understand the law. Please explain to me how someone can commit Unarmed robbery? The law allows for both armed and unarmed robbery. This legal distinction existed back during our Founding Fathers. So they too understand the legal difference between being armed and unarmed. Otherwise every robbery would be armed and their would be no need for a difference. Unless there was a robbery committed by a person without hands and feet. Perhaps the once in a century crime like that would need a distinction.

            “The thing YOU forget (or more likely refuse to acknowledge) is that THERE IS A GUN BEHIND THAT TAXATION AND PROPERTY SEIZURE! ”

            No there isn’t. Like I said, you wake-up and your bank account is empty. When did the Government point a gun at you? What good would a gun do you? Are you going to shot the internet at night to keep your money?

            How is there a gun involved in taxation? I don’t even see the Government when I’m taxed. It’s taken out of my pay check automatically by my employer, it’s charged to me by the merchant when I make a purchase. I don’t see the Government at all, let alone an armed one.

            How about counting your vote? If you show up to vote and they deny you, will waiving a gun make them count your vote? Maybe they’ll lie to you and say they will, but you have no real means to make them.

            So no, there isn’t a gun there.

            You really are stupid. No stupid and desperate.

            • Bret,

              This is starting to sound familiar. Do I know you by another name? 🙂

              So, we have switched from ‘oppression’ to ‘armed robbery’ and are attempting to treat them as the same thing now, are we? FALLACIOUS OBJECTION! The fallacy is equivocation and bait-and-switch.

              There is no gun behind government use of force? I mean, you admitted taxation and property seizure are tyranny, and the use of force is inherent in the definition of tyranny. So taxation and property seizures are force. So, tell me, Brent, since the government is really nothing more than a group of people, how — exactly — do they take my money or property without a gun? I mean, if I say no, what will they do? All I have to do is keep my money out of the bank and watch over my property with my weapon in hand. Are you and your 9 friends going to come take my money and property for the government, Brent? Or will they send the police? And will the police be wearing guns? OOPS-SIE! Didn’t think that one out very well, did you. Or does the principle of logical extension on apply when you TRY to make it, like in your claim that oppression does not require a weapon?

              OK, I am stupid. I’ll accept that. But at least I know how to use logic. I know what logical extension is. I know what fallacies are. I know what ‘sound,’ ‘valid’ and ‘rational’ mean (all without having to go to Google). I know what ad hominem is (again, without using Google). BTW: you guys seem to LOVE that one. I also know that you have made a GREAT many assumptions in your comments to me (and the way you use them is laughably fallacious). So I don’t mind being stupid because, unlike yourself, at least I am rational 🙂

              • “So, we have switched from ‘oppression’ to ‘armed robbery’ and are attempting to treat them as the same thing now, are we? FALLACIOUS OBJECTION! The fallacy is equivocation and bait-and-switch.”

                No, I didn’t switch I used it to show the absurdity of your argument. You argued someone is armed when they are unarmed. You can do that, but you are in direct conflict with the dictionary and the Founding Fathers.

                If we take your argument than every person meets the legal requirement of the Second Amendment because Hands and Feet meet the legal threshold of being armed. Of course you as a rational person wouldn’t accept that argument. If we did, we would have to read the second amendment as “the right of the people to keep and bear hands and feet, shall not be infringed,” and that’s just absurd. Just like your thinking.

                ” and the use of force is inherent in the definition of tyranny.”

                Really, because I don’t see that at all in the definition.

                “tyr·an·ny
                ˈtirənē/Submit
                noun
                noun: tyranny; plural noun: tyrannies
                cruel and oppressive government or rule.
                “people who survive war and escape tyranny”
                synonyms: despotism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism; More
                a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
                cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
                “she resented his rages and his tyranny”
                (especially in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.”

                Now I know you, because you’re dumb and don’t bother to look in the dictionary, here is the definition of cruel.

                “cru·el
                ˈkro͞o(ə)l/Submit
                adjective
                adjective: cruel; comparative adjective: crueller; superlative adjective: cruellest; comparative adjective: crueler; superlative adjective: cruelest
                willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.”

                So one can be cruel without feeling concern about pain.

                So a Government can be Tyrannical without force. It need only not allow the votes of a minority/majority and have no concern about it.

                But I’ll continue to rip your absurdity apart and you can’t hide behind not posting my replies like an intellectual coward.

                “I mean, you admitted taxation and property seizure are tyranny”

                No, I used them of examples. Examples that would exist under a Tyrannical Government, not something that is indicative of Tyranny. Even a lawful Government can do that. Unless you can quote my words that say it’s only Tyranny, because if you, can’t that’s a lie, and you are a liar.

                “All I have to do is keep my money out of the bank and watch over my property with my weapon in hand. Are you and your 9 friends going to come take my money and property for the government, Brent?”

                No, clear lack of thinking. So you’re question is what will we do if you hideout in your home huddled on your mattress? Nothing, why do we need to do anything? Seriously, we can just wait, you’ll die of starvation.

                “Or will they send the police? And will the police be wearing guns? OOPS-SIE!”

                No oops, people can out wait an idiot who apparently forgets about the need to get food. Let me guess, you’ll have a years supply? Two years? A life time? fine whatever. You just jailed yourself in a prison of your own making, and it doesn’t cost the government anything.

                The use a force is a choice. In your example the Government doesn’t need to exercise it to get what it wants in the end. It need only outlast you, and I assure you, something that is immortal will outlast someone that isn’t.

                “I also know that you have made a GREAT many assumptions in your comments to me (and the way you use them is laughably fallacious)”

                Oh wow, another empty statement with nothing to back it up. How predictable. I mean you couldn’t even produce one example? Anyways.

                I still cannot help but notice you failed to address the biggest hole in your claim. The Government doesn’t need a gun to deny the very thing the Founders Fought for, a representative Government. The Government doesn’t need a gun to deny your vote. It can simply drop it into the trash can.

                The Tyranny of the majority was a fear of the Founding Fathers and it need not use a gun.

                  • Sir,

                    We have never met in person. If we had I’m sure you remember because it would mostly involve me laughing and pointing at you. But I can’t help but notice you are still failing to address what I said.

                    Would you like a lesson in American History? You seem to be very ignorant of it.

                    Arguably the whole thing that started to American Revolution and created the “No taxation without representation” call was the Stamp Act.

                    That was an example of Government Tyranny without a gun. That was not the Government marching around with guns to force people to pay, but rather force them to pay or be neglected.

                    For example a court wouldn’t honor legal documents if it didn’t have the stamp. A last will and testament would not be honored in a court of law without the stamp. Basic legal functions that a Government is required to perform for the good function and well being of a society wouldn’t happen without the stamp.

                    A Government can be Tyrannical not with a gun, but in failing to do it’s job.

                    But hey, what do I know? Oh yea, history and logic.

                    To everyone else, go to his blog https://theroadtoconcord.com/2018/02/26/original-intent-the-militia-is-independent-of-the-government/

                    You’ll notice no comments there. Because he moderates them. He doesn’t have the same courage as this blog poster has. If a comment destroys his argument, he acts like it never happened.

                    But here, you see he has no answer but he can’t hide the comment away, so he shifts.

                    Sad really, which is why my meetings with him would me filled with laughter, laughter at him.

                    B3A HERE 🙂

                    Bret, I do know you. We have met — many times, even if you were many different people. You see, you missed the fact that I was not talking about you, personally, but about the way of thinking you represent. You do not understand the rules of basic logic or right reason, but you believe you do. I can say this because I do understand those rules, and I yield to them. So, when someone like you comes along and demonstrated — by their words and actions — that they do not know those rules, it is easy to see. And in saying you don’t know them, I am actually being kind because the other option is that you do know them but intentionally refuse to conform to them. In this case, not only would you be intellectually dishonest, but you’d be evil, as well. I never accused you of that.

                    Now, as to why I deleted your comments from TRTC. Yes, I did delete your comments. Now, tell this board why. It was because you were intentionally mucking up the discussion. Also, I did not just delete your comments. I did it AFTER I repeatedly asked you to use the rules of logic and right reason and warning you that I would delete your comments if you refused. You refused, so you were deleted. BTW: these rules are posted on that blog, so you are complaining that I enforced my posted rules. That is not rational, Brent.

                    Finally, as to the notion that I am afraid of you and that is why I deleted your comments. Well, as you can see, I could have deleted you here, as well. I am an administrator on this blog, Bret, and I will let any post you make stand here. But that is because the rules on this blog are different: they allow irrational commentary.

                    Now, if you want things to change, try answering OTHER peoples’ questions when they ask one instead of just crying that people will not allow you to seize the debate and make it a one-sided ad hominem lecture. Also, if you demand something, and it is provided, you should acknowledge it — especially if it refutes your claims. This is one of the basic rules of logic: that you must recognize fact, even if you do not like it. So, if you learn how to use logic and you conform to its rules, you will find that I will allow your comments on my other blog — but not until.

  3. Sweet !!……. But I still ain’t giving up my Guns. Because they are tied to my right ti Life and Liberty…..as given by God. They also are necessary to guard against foreign invasions…and mexican cartel guests.

    Besides….they’s just fun as heck to het the bullseye with….. ;- )

  4. I don’t know why it keeps forever crunching our replies. So I’ll start a new one.

    “This is why your comments on my blog were deleted: because, after multiple attempts to get you to conform to the laws of basic logic, you demonstrated you had no desire or understanding of how to do so.”

    No.

    I’ll point out your failures and allow the people to verify it.

    You present false and misleading arguments. Lies, either from ignorance or purposely lying.

    Back to the blog post.

    https://theroadtoconcord.com/2018/02/26/original-intent-the-militia-is-independent-of-the-government/

    You’ll see in the link this was originally posted 02/26, he revised it on 02/28. Why did you revise it? Could it be in response to my comment?

    You’ll see in his blog in the revised one, part of his argument is highlighted.

    I did a screen capture so people here can see it.

    https://ibb.co/g9S57c

    “The government is also given the authority to call out the militia in times of civil unrest or insurrection, rebellion and times of war. That’s it. ”

    So he is telling everyone this is the only time the Government can call out the militia. I’m sure he will try to say this is nit picking, but the relationship and the situation when the Government can call out the militia is important because it shows the responsibility the Founding Fathers believe the militia had in relation to the Federal Government, and the union.

    But anyone that knows what the Constitution says, knows it states;

    “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

    He is slicing off the entire first part, and it is critically important.

    So he is lying when he say’s “That’s it.”

    So now we have to wonder, why is he lying? Is he lying out of ignorance and he just doesn’t know what the Constitution says. Or, worse, purposely deceiving? Neither are good for him.

    • Brent,

      I know you BELIEVE you pointed out problems with my argument on TRTC, but belief is seldom reality. The reality here is that you did not refute my argument — mostly because you never addressed it, you just made a series of unsupported assertion, then proceeded to assume you had ‘dealt’ with me. . THAT IS FALLACIOUS REASONING! You have to actually deal with the whole of a person’s argument. You can’t just say “The government DOES have control over the militia, therefore everything you say is wrong!” and then move on like you have proven your point. You haven’t — especially because you totally ignored my argument and the mountain of the Founders’ quotes that contradict your assertion. Nor did you bother to answer me when I questioned you, or asked you to explain how the Founders could be wrong about their own beliefs. ALL of this is irrational argumentation, which is exactly why I say I have met you many times.

      In addition to the above, you cannot start with 1 objection, then — when you are countered — switch to a 2nd objection, then a 3rd and now — as you have here — a 4th. You keep changing your objections and acting as though they are all the same objection. This is fallacious (it’s equivocation, among several others). I have deleted your original comments, so other readers have no way to verify what I am saying, but that does not matter to me. You have strayed far afield from your original objection (which was, “That quote doesn’t say that.”) to whatever point it is you are trying to make here. And, sadly, you apparently think your ramblings are all the same argument, which seems to be “YOUR WRONG, HA!”

      I have tried to explain to you that, if I make a mistake in my reasoning, you have to name the fallacy I had made, then show me where I committed it. You cannot just point to something you THINK contradicts my argument and then assume you have defeated my argument. Logic does not work that way — as I repeatedly (and am still) trying to explain to you. Nor am I trying to tell you what to do: I am telling you that LOGIC DICTATES THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO! Not my rules, but the eternal rules of Reason, Brent.

      Now, all you are doing here is tripling down on your original fallacy and, thereby, demonstrating to those WHO DO UNDERSTAND LOGIC that you do not. Therefore, you will get the last word — as many times as you want to post it. I’m done with you. I’m going to end here, because you have shown me that you are a lost cause (and/or dishonest agent). I am commenting for the benefit of those who are still open to reason. Those people will be able to choose between us for themselves. They have no need of either one of us telling them which of us is correct. You think you have made your case. I think you have made MY case for me. So this is where I’ll leave it because, as Thomas Paine said:

      “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture. Enjoy, sir, your insensibility of feeling and reflecting. It is the prerogative of animals.”

      • “I then tried to explain to you that, if I made a mistake, you had to name the fallacy I had made, then show me where I committed it. You cannot just point to something you THINK contradicts an argument and then assume you have defeated that argument. Logic does not work that way — as I repeatedly (and am still) trying to explain to you.”

        Oh, I didn’t point out the fallacy? Hmm, I said you lied. Could lying be a fallacy? I would explain it, but another person put it just as plainly as I ever could and I will quote them;

        “A lie can be a fallacy, but not every lie is a fallacy. What stinks is that, even though a lie is by default a falsehood or deception, and therefore fallacious, a person can construct a lie to be logically consistent when taken at face value. ”

        So I did name your fallacy, when I called it a lie.

        “Finally, you cannot start with 1 objection, then — when you are countered — switch to a 2nd objection, then a 3rd and now — as you have here — a 4th. You keep changing your objections and acting as though they are all the same objection. This is fallacious (equivocation, among several others).”

        When I am countered? You are lying again.

        My first objection has remained the same until you failed to address it multiple times.

        “But, that aside, your question still shows you have a poor understanding of Government tyranny and thinking it can only come at the end of a gun. How about taxation? Unlawful seizure of property. You need only wake-up one day and find your bank account seized without due process. Or, not counting someones vote, therefore depriving them of a say in the Government.”

        Tell me, how did you counter this?

        Please quote yourself where you refuted my assertion a Government doesn’t need guns to be Tyrannical.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s