# If the 2nd Amendment was to enable the overthrow of a tyrannical government...



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 30, 2015)

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?



Absolutely.  When the rebellion succeeds.


----------



## Sonny Clark (Mar 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?


"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.


----------



## cnm (Mar 30, 2015)

Dead right, treason never succeeds.


----------



## cnm (Mar 30, 2015)

Sonny Clark said:


> "LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point.


You've mistaken the condition required to render legality moot.


----------



## Sonny Clark (Mar 30, 2015)

cnm said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > "LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point.
> ...


How so? Please explain my error. Thanks.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?


I think it was more to remind them not to get tyrannical in the first place, but, seems they forgot.

Much more of the kind of crap we have had in the last 50 years, and it might be time to water the tree of Liberty again.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 30, 2015)

cnm said:


> Dead right, treason never succeeds.


Obama seems to be getting away with it.


----------



## Sonny Clark (Mar 30, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?
> ...


AMEN   !!!!    ------    I totally agree.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 30, 2015)

Sonny Clark said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?
> ...


I thing it is time we stressed no representation without taxation.

That 47% pay no federal personal income tax is tyrannical.

Since the Founding Fathers specifically forbade an income tax, and an amendment was needed to get one, I think it is time for another one, one that allows a head tax, payable in cash, or in labor.

No skin in the game, no voting rights.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 30, 2015)

Sonny Clark said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?
> ...



Is the government still 'representative' of the governed? Avg congressperson's a multimillionaire. Avg citizen is lower middle class.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 30, 2015)

To put that another way, the USA is an aprtheid-like nation where a minority of very rich people rule a majority of very poor ones.


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 30, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Yes.  Damn those people for being too poor or old.  How dare they.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 30, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?
> ...



    It's gonna get harder to do when you replace real Americans with bunch of immigrants that dont have the slightest idea as to how we became such a great country.
   All they see is free shit.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 30, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



 Absofuckinglutely!!!


----------



## cnm (Mar 30, 2015)

Sonny Clark said:


> How so? Please explain my error. Thanks.


Treason never succeeds and here is the reason,
If treason doth succeed none dare call it treason.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


Don't worry, average citizen will soon be poor.

Reduced to the lowest common denominator, we will soon reach that Left Utopia, the classless society(elite rulers being the exception, as Lenin wanted).


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 30, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Sonny Clark said:
> ...



 Whats old have to do with it? 
When you contribute nothing to society and you can vote yourself largess from the tax payer it's a losing game that will eventually collapse the system. Should the poor be allowed into a sporting event for free just because they're poor? How about a cruise in the Caribbean?
  No payment into the system no vote.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 30, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Sonny Clark said:
> ...


The ld" have most of the wealth in this country.

Anybody able bodied poor in this land of free basic education and virtually unlimited opportunity have none to blame but themselves.


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 30, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...



Old has everything to do with it.  You should check up on exactly who this 47% (actually it is more like 44% now) are.  Most of them pay payroll tax, IOW they have money deducted from their pay check, but make so little they end up paying no income tax after deductions.  Those damn poor people not starving their children are such a pain and should have no say.  Of the rest, we are talking 2/3 people who are too old to work and live on social security.  Where are those isolated ice flows when you need them?  Then there are the people too disabled to work.  Soylent Green anyone?  About 3% remain who fall into none of those categories, and they are mostly children.   Are there no work houses?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 30, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



 Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.


----------



## ralfy (Mar 30, 2015)

The purpose of the Second was to form regulated militias to support the standing army of the government. That's why it's seen in light of Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 30, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



But you're not going to actually check the numbers, are you.  I ended that with a period rather than a question mark because there really is no question.  You've got a number you like, so why find out what's behind it?  You might not like the answer.  Just another drone.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 30, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



  I'm smart enough not to rely on SS so your numbers really dont mean shit to me personally.
   If we had a better economy there'd be more money in the SS coffers. Dems are leading us down a road where SS will fail because it cant be funded from the min wage jobs they tout as a success. Stop taxing and regulating the shit out of business and let capitalism work and we'll have better paying jobs that dont go overseas.


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 30, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



Yes, I understand what you have been told to believe.  Accepting that is what drones do.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 30, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



  So you think this obammy economy is going to solve the problem?
You're dumber than a bag of hammers.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?


The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First Amendment.

Americans have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, either through the political process or the judicial.

That a given contingent of the American people might subjectively perceive the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical' does not authorize them to seek to circumvent either the political or legal process, denying the rest of the American people their rights enshrined in the First Amendment.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 30, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...




I don't even get SS.

I went into a Teacher Retirement system, and all the SS I paid as a well paid Merchant Marine has been stolen from me.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 30, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



 Thats fucked up! 
I wont need mine,but I'll damn sure take it if it's still around.
  I'll use it for ammo money.


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 30, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



You really do need to practice thinking.  You aren't good at it at all.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 30, 2015)

SONNY CLARK SAID:

“If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point.”

What constitutes 'enough' citizens – 51 percent, two-thirds; where in Constitutional case law is 'enough' defined.

And what are the criteria as to when government becomes 'tyrannical,' and who determines consensus concerning that criteria.

Last, what of Americans who don't consider it 'necessary,' are they and their First Amendment rights simply going to be ignored because 'some' Americans consider armed rebellion 'necessary.'


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 30, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



I have no idea what the retirement system you are in works, but I am in one as well and it is in addition to SS, not as a substitute.  I am not aware of any retirement system that eliminates your entitlement to social security.  But perhaps you can educate me.


----------



## PratchettFan (Mar 30, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SONNY CLARK SAID:
> 
> “If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point.”
> 
> ...



If there is a successful rebellion, then references to the Constitution are irrelevant.  The First Amendment only exists so long as we agree it does exists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 30, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


This is true unmitigated ignorance and idiocy, and patently un-Constitutional.

It's also transparently partisan, yet another bad faith scheme to deny the vote to citizens you and most others on the right perceive to be likely voters for democratic candidates.


----------



## Abatis (Apr 5, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?



Your fundamental premise is nonsensical; how can a tyrannical government be considered legal and thus owed the protections of the compact it is violating (e.g., prosecution for treason, sedition, insurrection . . . )?  

Is there a constitutional rule that says the government can do whatever it wants, violate whatever limits the people set-out and codified in the Constitution and that the people are not only powerless to remedy the situation but remain forever absolutely constrained by the Constitution's protections of "government" no matter what it morphs into?

Aren't you (anti-gunners) the guys who usually argue that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact?


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Apr 8, 2015)

I support 2nd amendment and I do have a handgun.
BUT
It's a pity that most gun owners forgot about the true meaning of amendment to form militia to secure a free state. Gun shops don't mention it too...


----------



## Abatis (Apr 9, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> I support 2nd amendment and I do have a handgun.
> BUT
> It's a pity that most gun owners forgot about the true meaning of amendment to form militia to secure a free state. Gun shops don't mention it too...



You have swallowed the interpretation that is promoted by those who are hostile to the 2nd Amendment, not supportive of it.  You might be kidding yourself, you certainly are not kidding anyone else.

Understand that the theory you embrace first appeared in the federal courts in 1942.  It was created for only one purpose, to argue an alternate theory of the 2nd Amendment to extinguish the protection of the individual right to arms.   The *ONLY* reason that theory is ever "cited" is to repel challenges to gun control laws. 

The theory has never existed in the actual action claimed, that the 2nd Amendment protects the militia or protects state's militia powers or that the 2nd Amendment speaks to militia control or direction . . . 

Specifically for your position, the 2nd Amendment has _*never*_ been examined or held to have any value in actually forming, organizing, training or deploying militia.  SCOTUS has only examined and cited the militia clauses in the _body_ of the Constitution for any direction . . .   

Your theory is a mirage, it is non-existent once you approach it from any other direction but to explain away securing an individual right.

Can you point to any instance where the 2nd Amendment was examined to inform Congress or the Courts on any point regarding the process and execution of forming the militia to secure a free state?


----------



## whitehall (Apr 9, 2015)

The Bill of Rights (including #2) were not intended to "enable" anyone to do anything. They were created to be curbs on the government's power to limit freedom. The genius Founding Fathers merely ensured that God given freedoms would not be taken away by any transient regime. The FF established legitimate ways to limit freedoms but the basic rights are established in the 1st ten Amendments and (so far) the Supreme Court has upheld the right of citizens to keep and bear arms so crazy scenarios might be entertaining but they are moot.


----------



## Dante (Apr 12, 2015)

Sonny Clark said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?
> ...


the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government,


Just because you are unhappy with election results doesn't mean you can take up arms.  we in the USA have a representative government


next


----------



## legaleagle_45 (May 28, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> I support 2nd amendment and I do have a handgun.
> BUT
> It's a pity that most gun owners forgot about the true meaning of amendment to form militia to secure a free state. Gun shops don't mention it too...


 
Indeed the widespread private ownership of arms facilitates the capacity of a free state to organize a militia from the ranks of its citizens regardless of what the federal government does or does not do with regards to its obligation to provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia as detailed in Article I, Sec 8, Cl 16.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (May 28, 2015)

The right of revolution is an extra constitutional remedy and is justified---

_That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-_​On the otherhand the 2nd was indeed conceived as a check on usurpations of federal power... such as a military coup or a president who did not like the results of an election.   Madison covers that possibility pretty well in Federalist 46


----------



## prison/con.net (May 28, 2015)

well, our Supremes have RULED that the 2nd (NOW) protects an individual right to own firearms.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (May 28, 2015)

prison/con.net said:


> well, our Supremes have RULED that the 2nd (NOW) protects an individual right to own firearms.


  And I said nothing to dispute that assertion..


----------



## prison/con.net (May 28, 2015)

the Heller ruling, which says that guns are an individual right, howeverr, is a LOT more pertinent to current debate about gun ownership than stuff that's 200+ years old.


----------



## Sidekick (May 28, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?



Assuming that the Constitution, itself, is not a form of tyranny... there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any government in the United States to defend itself from the will of the people to abolish it if necessary, certainly nothing in there to grant a government the right to deny the reality of their constituents. Basically, if a million people showed up at the capital with guillotines and an itch, meh, what can you really do to stop them? The Confederate States already tried this and lost, but the premise of legality comes from the states, where the legitimate means to overthrow a tyranny happens when the people of one or more states effectively nullifies the federal republic within their respective realm and thus commits to revolution or civil war until such time that the federal republic is vanquished. Good luck with that.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (May 28, 2015)

prison/con.net said:


> the Heller ruling, which says that guns are an individual right, howeverr, is a LOT more pertinent to current debate about gun ownership than stuff that's 200+ years old.


 
The Heller ruling relied upon and cited as authority a bunch of stuff that was 200+ years old...


----------



## legaleagle_45 (May 28, 2015)

Sidekick said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?
> ...


 
Well except for the express provision in Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 which authorizes them to supress insurrections...


----------



## Sidekick (May 29, 2015)

legaleagle_45 said:


> Sidekick said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Of course, that would be the argument. That's why I am careful to qualify my comment by starting with "Assuming the Constitution, itself, is not a form of tyranny..." I think that a process of devolution is possible but I doubt anyone wants it.


----------



## Christophera (May 31, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?


Yes, I believe that the priority of rights in the Bil of Rights is correct and indicates the sequence of legitimacy which the people might lawfully employ for revolution.

Or, after a lawful peaceful revolution fails, then a violent one is justified legally.  HOWEVER, there is a catch in this as the infiltration of government is working to exploit to the lawful peaceful revolutions demise.  They even created a few generations of Americans resistant to natural law understanding by corrupting them spiritually.

Covert, cgnitive infiltrations into social activist groups is attempting to prevent the unity required to actually, effectively enable a lawful peaceful revolution, which means it may not actually be tried if the covert infiltrations are successful and the people fail to agree upon prime constitutional intent which empowers the lawful aspect by proper amendment putting the infiltration out of business.  Instead the effort is abandoned after a time and the covert infiltration works to initiate violent revolution.

Because the unity for a lawful, peaceful revolution never existed, the unity required for a successful violent revolution is not present, which the infiltrators well know, so the effort instead turns into an excuse, by the infiltration of government, for slaughter of violent citizens that cannot or will not understand lawful and peaceful and the imposition of total tyranny after it fails.  Whereupon all premise of law is disposed of.

If the lawful, peaceful revolution had been sincerely embraced, there would be substantial, rightful unity after its failure (unlikely), and even those not able to understand the framers intent that Americans be able to overthrow the infiltrations working to pervert the constitution by using their unity, would realize that the effort for a lawful and peaceful revolution WAS the right way to proceed, would join those that had tried for the lawful and peaceful unified into a successful violent revolution.

The reason for the success would be the proper articulation of the basics of the failed lawful, peaceful revolution which would gain far more support than pure violent intent not having lawful basis in the restoration of original intents of the constitution.

Accordingly, if the above is understood and accepted by any American reading, visit the "Lawful and Peaceful" revolution thread, 

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

and express your understanding with acceptance of the basis of unity of the Lawful and peaceful revolution proposed, two prime rights; 1= the right to alter or abolish, 2= the purpose of free speech enabling the right to alter or abolish, and kick josf in the head to determine if he is real or not.  I think not.  Too much obfusucation, selectivity, intentional misinterpreting, reinterpreting for that.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 4, 2015)

legaleagle_45 said:


> Sidekick said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Which is why a lawful and peaceful
Revolution will work so well if based in prime constitutional intent.


----------



## AJT (Jun 17, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?




Actually, there is no contradiction there. The mere possession of firearms by the people would deter tyranny.
The 2nd amendment discusses the existence of the militia, which is a group of citizens organized and armed to resist tyranny. The militias were instrumental in our victory in the Revolutionary war.


----------



## AJT (Jun 17, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Representation does not require that Congress be in the same economic circumstances as the voters.
It requires only that the members of Congress, when they vote on legislation, support the wishes of their constituents. You don't have to be poor to help the poor.


----------



## AJT (Jun 17, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> To put that another way, the USA is an aprtheid-like nation where a minority of very rich people rule a majority of very poor ones.



They don't rule us at all. They know that we can remove them from office anytime we are displeased with their actions.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 17, 2015)

AJT said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Sonny Clark said:
> ...


 
Where in the Constitution does it say the members of Congress are required to support the wishes of their constituents?


----------



## Christophera (Jun 17, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?
> ...


When the revolution is lawful and peaceful but fails because of subversion of rights, then the grounds for violent revolution are present.

But not until that lawful and peaceful revolution is sincerely tried.

The 2nd amendment is the 2nd for a reason.  The 1st amendment has the purpose of enabling the unity required to peacefully alter of abolish.  Which is effectively a form of revolution.

If the people are so mislead, and the systems of sharing information which serve the purpose of enabling unity are so separate from the peoples control, the unity required for either revolution will not be present and the people will become enslaved or die trying to preserve their rights and freedoms.

If the lawful peaceful revolution is underway, our soldiers may recognize that their service is based upon a constitutional government creating the lawful military authority in command of them.  If their efforts to lawfully and peacefully support altering of abolishing the unconstitutional government which cannot bestow lawfulness upon the command over them are not accepted, the lawful basis for violent revolution is established and the military is faced with discovering a covert political insurrection that they have the duty of stopping however they might.

SOLDIERS APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF INQUIRY INTO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CIVIL AUTHORITY STATUS ESTABLISHMENT OF LAWFUL MILITARY AUTHORITY.


----------

