NH: Virginia Tech Rant (guns, disarmament, gun control)
Posted on | February 6, 2010 | 25 Comments
Sponsor: ridleyreport.com – “Soapbox Idol” begins with “Angry Gun Guy eloquent take on massacre-prevention. This is a sub-event at the Free Staters’ “Porucpine Festival.” And Free Staters are folks who move to New Hampshire for more freedom freestateproject.org Buy an ad on the Ridley Report if you like vids of this type… http Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, sarah palin ridleyreport second amendment new hampshire victim disarmament concealed carry open carry ron paul angela keaton gardner goldsmith free state project lancaster rogers campground american idol soapbox idol dave ridley report staters pistol revolver holster self-defense
Comments
25 Responses to “NH: Virginia Tech Rant (guns, disarmament, gun control)”
Leave a Reply
February 6th, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Good deal so much better then the crying Marxist liberals nonsense at most colleges.
February 6th, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
Great video!
February 6th, 2010 @ 3:51 pm
I carry my pistol encase of another VT. Enough BS gun control laws
February 6th, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
Nice to see this occuring at a university.
February 6th, 2010 @ 5:26 pm
YES!!!!
February 6th, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
I LOVE the “brought to you by”’s Riddley, you Rule.
Riddley Rules!
February 6th, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
wouldnt use US military to take our firearms
Most of us would never comply. We took an oath to defend the constitution and our way of life, not pop culture Obamamania. Give me such orders and youll find yourselves armed with M249s, M240s, M2s, aromored vehicles, etc…
UN troops would gladly kill everyone who dared to disagree or speak out, that you are right about.
February 6th, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
I wonder if the good honest dead students voted for obama?
February 6th, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
You hit the nail on the head . You know that the federal gov by culling the states after we gave the federal gov power. Ok next issue is thatabsolutely it never said weather the man or woman may carry a firearm or when or where or what type. The laws that differ from state to state are policies. If that wasnt the case that all states in the union would have to comply together equally. But it apears that each state that recives more fed dollars has a stricter policy reguarding gun control.
February 6th, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
Good speech. Loved the reply from Craig T. Nelson.
February 6th, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
The Government wouldnt use US military to take our firearms or to quell a Coup. The UN would gladly provide troops. And of course they would be killed. I wouldnt fire on US Citizens but I would fire on UN troops regardless of what country they are from. Regardless of what anti gun people may want there are far to many gun owners who would rather die than give up the 2nd Amendment rights granted to us. I am but one soldier that would stand beside other gun owners and fight to the death
February 6th, 2010 @ 9:53 pm
lets hope it doesnt try.
February 6th, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
What are you talking about? What has happened plenty of times?
If you are referring to a successful violent rebellion against a state armed with nuclear weapons…… I can’t think of a single time that that has occurred. Maybe the closest thing was a military coup in Pakistan (which was nonviolent.)
In the case of the downfall of the Soviet Union that was probably the greatest example of a non violent revolution the world has ever seen. No guns needed.
So what are you talking about?
February 6th, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
Nukes? I agree that would be unlikely.
A single nuke? Yes probably if they think things are truly getting beyond their control.
A nuclear detonation would be accompanied by the usual propaganda that it is actually “saving lives.”
A single low yield tactical neutron bomb would do the job. Everyone would fall in like pretty quickly after that.
You make a good point about conventional weaponry. A nuclear scenario is really only valid if overwhelming conventional force us unsuccessful.
February 6th, 2010 @ 10:34 pm
What are you talking about? Its happened plenty of times.
February 6th, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
So… You think if there was another Revolution in America that the Feds would use nukes?!?!
That’s just silly.
They have ample advantage with conventional weaponry, they won’t kill themselves along with us.
Hopefully the mission and message of OathKeepers will spread, and our military simply won’t follow any orders to kill our own.
February 6th, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
You’re not breaking the law if the law is unconstitutional … SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means … SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, Impeded, restricted, constrained. It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The word BEAR in this context means CARRY. If a police officer wants to take your weapon, just ask if he/she intends to infringe on your right to keep and bear that arm. The second amendment IS YOUR PERMIT TO CARRY !!!!!
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
February 7th, 2010 @ 12:25 am
Guns will not overthrow tyranny that is armed with nuclear warheads.
February 7th, 2010 @ 1:23 am
And when the authoritarian, totalitarian fascists are the only ones allowed to have guns? What will you do then? Vote? ROFL. Fat lotta good that’s doing us right now. Over 90% of the citizen feedback to congress on TARP was a big fat NO, and what did they do?
Taxation without representation is here – right here, right now. I’m not advocating violent overthrow. But if they start the bloodshed, it will be on their own heads.
February 7th, 2010 @ 1:38 am
Of course they weren’t mercenaries. They were citizens. And it was expected that all citizens would be armed for both personal and common defense. And if they had high quality weapons, so much the better.
But as soon as some tragedy like this happens, the statist idiots want to start crying about “assault weapons” (as if they even knew what that meant) and basically pushing for a society where the only criminals with guns are the ones in uniform.
Precisely what 2A was to defend against.
February 7th, 2010 @ 2:07 am
I’m against all forms of fascism. totalitarianism, and authoritarianism just like you are. I just think our methods differ.
On that I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
February 7th, 2010 @ 2:15 am
The colonial militia was not a private army. Certainly not like Blackwater (Xe?) is today. They were not mercenaries or hired guns, but private citizens who came to the defense of their communities, maybe even at the expense of their own private property.
They did not come to the call individual self reliance, but to the call of civic duty. Thus the well regulated militia clause of the 2nd amendment.
I agree that was fresh in the minds of the writers of the constitution.
February 7th, 2010 @ 2:40 am
Then by all means, go live in one of those places, and let Big Brother take care of you. I’ll take care of myself, thanks.
February 7th, 2010 @ 3:38 am
The militia is every male between 18 and 45 years of age, with the exception of conscientious objectors.
You do realize that the first battle of the War of Independence was precipitated by government troops marching to Concord to seize the arms of the CIVILIAN militia, which included CANNON? This was fresh in our founders’ minds when they penned those words.
February 7th, 2010 @ 3:53 am
So I take it you’re a one man well regulated militia then?
A militia of one. Sounds like a familiar marketing slogan I have heard before…….
Why is the clause about the well regulated militia always neglected? I mean, I know libertarians believe in self reliance and all.
Isn’t the 2nd amendment more about civic duty than individual self reliance?