Ron Paul Says Citizens may Have to use Physical Violence to Stop US Government....

The al-Tower Seven Tinfoil Brigades, reporting for duty. Side note: A Congressman calling for armed revolt? I hope someone in DC is paying attention to this deranged fucker......

In a radio interview earlier this week, U.S. congressman Ron Paul said it may become necessary for citizens to resort to physical opposition if the government continues to erode civil liberties and commit international acts of aggression.

Asked by radio show host (head troofer nut) Alex Jones if he believed in the use of violence or other physical action to oppose an unjust government, Paul, a one-time presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party and a contender for the Republican presidential nomination until he dropped out of the race earlier this year, answered in the affirmative.

"Well, there's always that possibility that, that time will come." he said. "I believe in that."

Paul then cited Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian spiritual leader who led nonviolent demonstrations to promote the independence of India from Great Britain, and Martin Luther King, who used the same nonviolent techniques on behalf of the American civil rights movement in the 1960s, as examples of physical protest.

"When the state goes off track, you usually do have to stand up," he said. When to do so, he said, is "an individual personal decision."

Rest here>>>

ZIP

Comments

[Dark Helmet]

Better reread the Constitution guys. It calls for just that.

It's about ousting a corrupt group of people, not destroying America.

It's called being a patriot, not a citizen.

If you love our nation and believe in the idea of what is was founded on, it's a clear choice.

For what it's worth, that means voting them out. If the will of the people is disregarded, that is another matter.

What do any of you think voting is backed up by anyway? Lawsuits?

[YOU ARE SCUM]

You lying sack of shit!

He did not say the word VIOLENCE, he said physical opposition such as demonstrations.

[Dark Helmet]

ylsos,

It all comes down to who is the most willing to do what it takes. Only an idiot would defend ron paul and only a fucking moron would try to say that the threat of a demonstration would be required to take our govement back.

[JDAM]

Asked by radio show host Alex Jones if he believed in the use of violence or other physical action to oppose an unjust government.....Ron Paul answered in the affirmative.....

YAC,

I know you won't respond, you have to chase down other blogs critical of the Foil King, but it seems clear he does.

[ZIP]

"he said physical opposition such as demonstrations"

Wow, you really are a fucking retard.....

[Harry Schell]

This is exactly what the Constitution authorizes: the right of citizens to take down a government run amok and replace it with a government which follows the Bill or Rights more perfectly, or perhaps less imperfectly.

Now, is this a likely event? I think not.

However, in this regard, do the citizens have the right to do so, yest they do. The 2nd Amendment is fundamental to this right, and the writings of the Founders indicate so clearly.

I think Paul is pulling a short line of fish, but he is right on this one as far as it goes. The issue is "if and when", not the right of citizens to do what is necessary as the Founders did so long ago.

[Dark Helmet]

Well Harry....

Even a clock that's stopped is right twice a day.

[Baraka]

But if sarah palin had said this she'd be accused of being a thug

Gotta like the double standards of Ron paul's robots ,Not you DH or harry