Which politicians should be shot?

The logic is clear, simple and irrefutable. We will face totalitarianism in the near future due to attempts by politicians to evade responsibility for their actions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2331.html
The Patriot act states that it is terrorism to attempt to intimidate or coerce the government. It is terrorism to intimidate or coerce civilians, but not to intimidate or coerce the government. Politicians must all accept the fact that they should be killed rather than not do the wishes of their voters otherwise they are supporting tyranny. Since their voters do not want a totalitarianism we need to start shooting politicians.

We should shoot one leading republican and one leading democrat because we do not wish to whip up paranoia, just remind the government that the US will never become a tyranny.

The republicans have already enacted the patriot act, the US is essentially a totalitarianism already and the government will inevitably start executing innocents within a number of years and countless millions in the following decades through democide. Soliciting mass murder is certainly a crime and thus those who solicited the patriot act should be executed. I suggest we shoot Michael Chertoff for drafting the patriot act, he must have known that it would result in the end of US democracy and his intentions were entirely malicious. Charges of treason and crimes against humanity should be brought against Michael Chertoff first, if the case fails or is ignored he should be tracked down and executed by vigilantes.

Henry Waxman is completely opposed to the 2nd amendment always voting pro-gun-control and famously quoting "If someone is so fearful that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have those weapons at all.", which can be contrasted to the better know quote
"When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the Government, there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson.
Whilst it is apparent we still have liberty and Waxman is an effective critic of the republican party, this quote is just too stupid to let go. He should be asked to engage in rational debate to discuss gun-control issues, if he refuses he should be kidnapped and forced to do so in front of a live webcast. If he absolutely refuses to explain to the people he is supposed to represent why he wants to disarm them he should be executed. His opinion is unimportant, whether at the end of the debate he believes gun control is good or bad doesn't matter. Just so long as a video of him being crushed in debate is made and sent across the internet.

>>1
Assuming the NSA/FBI/CIA or whatever haven't sent their swat teams in on you yet, you should be mindful of the fact that in the event of you shooting a politician or two, the politicians would be labelled heros, and you'd be labelled a terrorist.  It would be all over the fucking media, and everyone would see a photo of your face with "TERRORIST" written over it in big letters. 

The only solution is to encourage gun ownership as a security measure to liberty, and encourage people to vote as such.  Once gun rights are secure, we can move on to other rights, but gun rights are the base of all political freedoms, since, as Mao said, all political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. 

Thus, gun rights is a no compromise issue, and we should start with there, and following that, proceed to vote pro-liberty, with the 2nd amendment as the non-negotiable base right, not to be touched. 

>>1
Something I forgot to add..

If you want to support freedom, and most particularly the 2nd amendment, as you mentioned, you might want to consider going it in such a way that won't* get yourself killed or jailed, and possibly harm the movement for liberty.

I support the Bill of Rights too.  Try these organizations, if you want to join and support the cause for liberty: 

http://www.jpfo.org/

http://www.gunowners.org/

http://www.nraila.org/

http://www.lp.org/

>>2
Then the politicians would have an excuse to tighten up gun control...

>>2
>>3
Well the thing is I am very intelligent and own an unregisterred high powerred sniper rifle, so I would succeed. As I alredy stated I would try my upmost to resolve the issue without violence using democracy. Either I will be proven wrong in rational debate, I will be right and they will be brought ot justice or I will be right and after much public attention to the matter to be sure that I am right I will use force appropriately. I would make it clear the whole debaucle from start to finnish the moment the deed is done. So several news companies would receive my report on the day I make an attempt on the criminal's life.

ALL politicians who don't approve our constitution fully should be shot. Especially those who are against first, second or fourth amendment.

>>6
We shouldn't shoot them indiscriminately, the public should know what they are doing and there should be conclusive proofs published for the population to acquire, showing all the facts and arguments especially those that the opposition used.

Then we shoot them.

>>6
That's just about all of them, lol.  There are some exceptions though.  I think being "shot" is a bit much.  I'd really rather just see them get voted out.  The key is education.  We need to bring back America's bill of rights culture. 

The most important liberty is arguably the 2nd amendment though, as this is the liberty that protects the rest. 

>>5 is either satire or simple irony.

I'm having a hard time telling which.

>>9
If I am absolutely certain and the public is aware that there is a criminal in the government who is above justice and actively on the way to driving the US to tyranny, why shouldn't I kill it? Perhaps you can explain to me.

To keep it short:

The law does not exist so you can violate it on a whim. I hope you're bright enough to see the repercussions of that, all that bravado aside. If the legal system has broken down so much that it won't prosecute a criminal in power, shooting a single individual won't get you anywhere.

I also find >>5's statement that they're intelligent quite hilarious when they can't even spell common words properly, or think that assassination of a US president is some simple thing.

But if you want to continue waving your wang in that juvenile fantasy land, don't let me stop you...

While you're polishing up your sniper rifle, I'm sure lots of us would appreciate your turning your thoughts towards one George W. Bush. Though he's just a puppet of the elite kingmakers, the political fallout alone makes king chimpy worthy of your consideration. Can you imagine the effect on the space-time continuum that billions of champagne corks popping at the same will have?

Your Democratic Party selection should also be a high-profile king-in-waiting. Hillary Clinton comes to mind. Don't sell yourself short. If you're going to be expending ammo, make sure it's not wasted on lesser-known technocrats.

Bushy is a puppet of course. A puppet controlled by big biz. I used to believe the Democrats will fix problems but I abandoned the idea.

The whole mess made by American politics? I would say the rigged two party system is the problem.

Now that's the Solid Snake I KNOW!

Don't shoot people you disagree with, shoot people who shoot people they disagree with.

>>15
What the fuck? Would you have shot the American Founders for revolting against the king?

>>16
No, I would have joined them since they wanted to shoot people for wanting to shoot people for wanting independance.

>>17
That isn't the conclusion one would come to from reading your comment.  Rebels and such are a good thing when they are fighting for a good cause.