Sure, if the legislation respects liberty a trifle more, that's good. But if it doesn't, which is generally the case... well, I'm OK with being an outlaw. Aren't you?
The origin of the word "outlaw" is said to have meant the person so labeled was declared to be "outside the protection of the law". I'm assuming they meant "legislation" (or those who enforce it) rather than "law", since no human can decide another is beyond the law.
How long has it been since you felt legislation protected you in any way? I can't remember the last time I felt that was the case, if ever. I may have always felt I was "outside the protection of the law" and it doesn't bother me even a little.
-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Get a Time's Up flag or two
I have PROUDLY been an outlaw since 1994.
ReplyDeleteNot because I have gone out of my way to commit crimes, but because I have ignored the tyrant's post de facto laws that have made me into a criminal (actually a paper felon) by the stroke of a pen, and were then upheld by activist rogue courts. In one particular ruling, the judge decided there would be no trial and issued a ruling on his own. He even went so far as to state in his final ruling that while his decision "burdened" the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens, it was necessary in the interest of "public safety." WHAT???
It was headed to the US Supreme Court, but withdrawn upon the death of Justice Scalia so it could be put forward in the future to a full court.
G.D.
Necessity is always the claim of tyrants.
Delete