Essay: A rant on “Second Amendment remedies”

Information and comments on the essay:

A rant on “Second Amendment remedies”

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: ttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKZkhnYUN6bXEzRUE/edit?usp=sharing

#Guns #Law #Militia #Patriot

Read by the author:

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

A rant on “Second Amendment remedies”

The concept of “exercising Second Amendment options” is alarming and disturbing. With that thoroughly in mind, I offer the following fictional tongue-in-cheek monologue to shine a bit of light on a not-so-modern evil.

I just heard that some people have been saying that we should use guns to get “Second Amendment remedies.” I’m not exactly clear on which people they think should be shot. Is it just Liberals in general, Liberal politicians, or anyone whose ideas run counter to those of the one toting a piece? I don’t know about you, but I thought shooting people for political purposes was frowned on.

Maybe it’s even illegal at the local, state, or federal level.

My daddy always told me to leave my guns at home when I went voting. He said, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” He also used to say, “You go shooting all the foxes and you’ll put ol’ Roy out of a job with nothing to bark at.”

I especially remember the time Daddy explained to me that if I still had my eye on that Johnson girl, that I had best make nice to her daddy, even if I did hate his guts. And I couldn’t just up and shoot Donnie Joe when I found out that

Essay: A rant on the use of violence

Information and comments on the essay:

A rant on the use of violence

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks
Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKU1RBYzBSZThWN3M/edit?usp=sharing


Read by the author:

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

A rant on the use of violence

Although good fences may be said to “make good neighbors,” hatred, blood-feuds, violent lust for revenge, and terrorism do not make good neighbors. Terrorism is often considered to be the use of violence by disenfranchised (not yet victorious) organizations or individuals against non-combatants to coerce political, social, or economic change.

Similar violence by established authorities is often considered “counter-terrorism” and “collateral damage.” Similar violence by successful “freedom fighters” is often considered heroic. In any event, targeting civilians is generally considered bad sportsmanship and should be frowned upon and viewed as unworthy of true gentlemen.

Likewise, Westerners may prefer to discuss the “ignominious French-Algerian War,” while North Africans refer to the glorious “Algerian War of Independence.” In any event, this war ran from 1954-1962, after over 120 years of French “international support” (or “imperialist colonial occupation and subjugation.”) History records similar atrocities committed by, and against, both sides during this war, regardless of issues of just or unjust causes.

Because history tends to repeat itself, thoughtful men have carefully examined this paroxysm of French-Algerian violence to learn lessons so as to avoid confrontation (or to prevail) in the case of similar circumstances arising again. One hopes that the motive in examining past terrorism is not isolated to refining more-effective