Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, that is not correct; it's dead wrong. There is no right sanctioned by the Second Amendment to take up arms against the government.
You do realize that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution aren't a list of the only rights we have, right? The Constitution is supposed to limit government, not the people.
The leftie gun grabbers ALWAYS point to the "well regulated militia" in response to the American citizens right to bear arms.
technically i'm conservative on all fiscal issues (mostly). . .and only hold some "progressive" ideals in regards to social platforms. . i disagree with the idea that being anti-gun is linked to "liberal" or "conservative"
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
The "well regulated militia" includes local and state police departments.
Recent police shootings (with the exception of mike brown) have shown that we are sitting ducks.
Thank God that we 2nd amendment proponents have the NRA to fight for that right!
HA HA HA
someone tell Ryan Frederick he shouldn't be serving a 10 year sentence for defending his house against police. . or you can assure Marvin Louis Guy he won't be executed! 2nd amendment will protect you
Listen here. .not sure if people don't understand it or what
2nd amendment does not allow for protection against the US government, or its civil services. Your belief in the tyranny or power of the US govt isn't a factor in that said governments decision to what it does with you if you breaks the state/federal laws.
technically i'm conservative on all fiscal issues (mostly). . .and only hold some "progressive" ideals in regards to social platforms. . i disagree with the idea that being anti-gun is linked to "liberal" or "conservative"
HA HA HA
someone tell Ryan Frederick he shouldn't be serving a 10 year sentence for defending his house against police. . or you can assure Marvin Louis Guy he won't be executed! 2nd amendment will protect you
Listen here. .not sure if people don't understand it or what
2nd amendment does not allow for protection against the US government, or its civil services. Your belief in the tyranny or power of the US govt isn't a factor in that said governments decision to what it does with you if you breaks the state/federal laws.
Yeah no being anti gun is very well link to the statist left..
The Second Amendment was meant to protect against a tyrannical government you would know this if you read the work of the Founders and the Federalist papers.
The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation. There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally. The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy, and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments.
I never make that argument, it's facile and disingenuous. As human beings we have the right to self determination (says it right there in the UN charter Chapter I clause 2)
Quote:
Charter of the United Nations
Chapter I
The Purposes of the United Nations are:...
2) To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace
If at such time a government is convened that is working against the aims and intents of the people, then they have the right to replace that government by whatever means necessary. To prevent this would be to violate the right of self-determination of peoples. (my words, not the UN's)
Historically the lawfully constituted government of the United States was the the Parliament of the United Kindom of Great Britain and Scotland. What would become the United States was not a self-governing dependency, but entirely a governed property of the United Kingdom. Colonial government was subservient to the British Government, much like State Government is preceded by Federal Government, there was no Sovereign Colonial Government, it did not exist.
The modern equivalent would be States secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence.
The Crown did not refuse, the matter was debated in the House of Commons, and voted on, the vote rejected that landowners in the colonies were eligible to vote in Parliament, while this is pretty unsurprising (why would British Landowners vote to dilute their power) under voting rules this was indeed a valid democratic vote, not a Monarchical edict.
This would (in a modern analog) be a State, Community or Collective arguing that the Federal Government was not representing the rights of a State, Community, or Collective.
I'll add the taxes being levied were to pay for the French-Indian Wars that the UK fought to defend the colonists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their citizens.
Just because George Washington suppressed the Whisky rebellion does not mean that it was a legal act, nor that it was aligned with the principles within the founding of the United States.
The Militia Act of 1792 needed to be certified by a Supreme Court justice to certify that law enforcement was beyond local authorities in those areas. That's smelling a little bit hokey to me on the 'free and clear' scale of legal actions, were it truly 'free and clear' no action would need to be taken surely, since the States involved themselves would be requesting aid in ending the rebellion.
If by organized militia, you mean that an army composed mainly of draftees, then yes I suppose one could consider it that. The draft was so unpopular that three counties in Eastern Virginia were scenes of armed draft resistance, seems like it almost cause a rebellion to quell a rebellion.
The Militia was not led by Washington, since the expectations were the rebellion would collapse, he placed Command with Henry Lee, and Washington returned to Philadelphia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
We would do well to learn from history rather than trying to rewrite it.
technically i'm conservative on all fiscal issues (mostly). . .and only hold some "progressive" ideals in regards to social platforms. . i disagree with the idea that being anti-gun is linked to "liberal" or "conservative"
HA HA HA
someone tell Ryan Frederick he shouldn't be serving a 10 year sentence for defending his house against police. . or you can assure Marvin Louis Guy he won't be executed! 2nd amendment will protect you
Listen here. .not sure if people don't understand it or what
2nd amendment does not allow for protection against the US government, or its civil services. Your belief in the tyranny or power of the US govt isn't a factor in that said governments decision to what it does with you if you breaks the state/federal laws.
HA HA HA
Yes, it does. The 2nd amendment protects the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The constitution is a document which describes how our government needs to act, not how we the people do.
The Tea Party sheep think its ok for private citizens to own nuclear weapons. That takes away every ounce of credibility right there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
