Ted Cruz: 2nd Amendment Is 'Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny'

[Statistikhengst]

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“There's no such thing as a Right Wing Extremist.”

Wrong.

We see evidence of that extremism daily on this very forum.

Conservatives seeking to deny women their privacy rights

Conservatives seeking to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law

Conservatives seeking to deny immigrants their due process rights

Conservatives seeking to deny transgender Americans their right to individual liberty.

Conservatives seeking to deny gay Americans access to public accommodations

Conservatives seeking to use the Second Amendment to 'justify' armed rebellion in violation of the First Amendment

Not to mention the errant extremism from the right concerning opposition to necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, and conservative advocacy of a ridiculous, unwarranted, and reactionary agenda seeking to return America to a pre-Lochner social and economic paradigm in defiance of all reason and logic.

Rightwing extremism is the bane of the American Nation.

Yepp.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DARKFURY SAID:

“My libertarian streak says I AM the arbitrator of what is constitutional.
My GOP streak give me the gun to back that up.
And my Tea Party streak gives me the balls to act on it.”

Yet further confirmation of the fact of rightwing extremism, particularly the idiotic notion that private citizens alone may determine what is 'constitutional.'

 

[Steinlight]

WHERE_R_MY_KEYS SAID:

“There's no such thing as a Right Wing Extremist.”

Wrong.

We see evidence of that extremism daily on this very forum.

Conservatives seeking to deny women their privacy rights

Conservatives seeking to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law

Conservatives seeking to deny immigrants their due process rights

Conservatives seeking to deny transgender Americans their right to individual liberty.

Conservatives seeking to deny gay Americans access to public accommodations

Conservatives seeking to use the Second Amendment to 'justify' armed rebellion in violation of the First Amendment

Not to mention the errant extremism from the right concerning opposition to necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, and conservative advocacy of a ridiculous, unwarranted, and reactionary agenda seeking to return America to a pre-Lochner social and economic paradigm in defiance of all reason and logic.

Rightwing extremism is the bane of the American Nation.

This really speaks for itself. You believe in some idea of "humanity" that is vested with ' rights' and has the sovereign authority to declare that its enemies have sought to deny these so called ''rights''. But I'm frankly stupefied that you'd invoke ' rights' in a discussion of history. A serious person simply wouldn't do that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LOL! Sheesh, the founding fathers, including even Alexander Hamilton, talked about this! It's in the federalist papers, for crying out loud.

The problem is that you, like so many other liberals, don't know your own country's history. Seriously, I'm not kidding. Only someone woefully ignorant of America's founding would be "shocked" at the principle that an armed citizenry is a check against tyrannical government.

I mean, gosh, you do at least know that the War of Independence started when the British tried to seize Patriot gun and ammo stashes in Lexington and Concord, right? Do you at least know that much?

The Framers did not speak with one voice, nor was that single voice the sole authority concerning any given issue, and the primary documents of the time are not the final determination as to the meaning of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Second Amendment prohibits Congress from disbanding the state militia and seeking to establish a “politicized standing army,” it does not warrant 'armed rebellion' predicated on an unfounded, subjective, and errant perception of 'tyranny.'

 

[westwall]

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

What's to discuss. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do and one, final option.

 

[Steinlight]

LOL! Sheesh, the founding fathers, including even Alexander Hamilton, talked about this! It's in the federalist papers, for crying out loud.

The problem is that you, like so many other liberals, don't know your own country's history. Seriously, I'm not kidding. Only someone woefully ignorant of America's founding would be "shocked" at the principle that an armed citizenry is a check against tyrannical government.

I mean, gosh, you do at least know that the War of Independence started when the British tried to seize Patriot gun and ammo stashes in Lexington and Concord, right? Do you at least know that much?

The Framers did not speak with one voice, nor was that single voice the sole authority concerning any given issue, and the primary documents of the time are not the final determination as to the meaning of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Second Amendment prohibits Congress from disbanding the state militia and seeking to establish a “politicized standing army,” it does not warrant 'armed rebellion' predicated on an unfounded, subjective, and errant perception of 'tyranny.'

Calling an armed rebellion illegal is redundant. It is a rather silly point to be honest.

You don't sound very smart when you say, "hey you can't rebel, that's illegal!". Well no shit. The Founders betrayed the Crown and violated British law, so America was founded on rebellion, secession if you will.

 

[ralfy]

I don't get why the militia types think they could take on the US military and win.

And yes, the military would fire on US citizens. They swear an oath to do exactly that.

I hear that worked out great in Afghanistan.

The idea that asymmetries of power render a group militarily helpless is little better than a joke. The lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan ought to be enough to put to rest the idea that a smaller, less well-armed force cannot put up a lasting resistance to a mighty military.

In the end, it is important to realize that the Second Amendment is just as relevant today as it ever was. Human nature has hardly changed in 200 years, and the rights we possess are no less inalienable or self-evident. Anyone trying to erode our constitutionally-enshrined rights should be immediately held suspect. If we do not protect our own rights, who will?

The right to defend oneself is a natural right and thus does not require government approval.

The need to force citizens to join militias regulated by the government, though, is not a natural right.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

What's to discuss. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do and one, final option.

Yes. The 2nd amendment is clearly enumerated. It's the application thereof that Ted Cruz is alluding to that is patently and completely false: to flat-out more than infer that people have the right to shoot the government when they are pissed off about something. We have never before had a presidential candidate who essentially says 'if you don't like your government, you can shoot it dead". That's dangerous. It's also 1860s barbaric.

It's reckless, it's irresponsible and it's flat out factually wrong.

Fact is that there is also a clause in the US Constitution that clearly states that the federal government can and will put down armed insurrection. It's also in federal laws made since the Constitution.

Finally, the last ditch arguments that the Cruzite-Bundyites use is that this is somehow righteous resistance to an illegal or illegitimate government, but the majority of Americans don't see it this way. So, where does it end? Should Lefties who are mad that pot is not legal nationally shoot the government?

We have a method for changing gubbermint and it's not the "bang-em-up" method. The method is called "elections".

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[WelfareQueen]

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

That's how we won our independence, Scat. As usual....thread = fail.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Some useful idiot just drooled "that's how we won our independence" out of his mouth in between bites of raspberry jello at Sunny Dales Sanatorium.

Poor Sanatorium inmate.

Duh. We weren't a nation yet.

Unless of course drooling inmate means to say that this blessed armed insurrection is supposed to split up our great Union.

Mebbe the jello is spiked!

""Teh Sowth will raaaaiz agin!"



Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not going to say whether the right wingers are correct or incorrect in believing that the Second Amendment allows them to commit armed insurrection against the government should they believe it to be tyrannical. I am going to say that, if they do publicly state this, then I'll sleep happier knowing they'll have been placed on a watch list as soon as they pressed "post reply".

It is the right of every individual to defend themselves from tyranny, up to an including, taking the lives of those who tyrannize them... as the tyrants have forfeited their rights to their lives by failing to bear the responsibility that sustains their rights, to not exercise those rights to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

But how cool is it that you've come to applaud tyranny, proving that you are in point of fact; THE PROBLEM.

Feel better?

So why was Tim McVeigh executed for asserting his right to act against what he believed was a tyrannical government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

That's how we won our independence, Scat. As usual....thread = fail.

And your next armed rebellion will be over what? Obamacare? Gay rights? Motor voter?

lol

 

[Politico]

I'm not going to say whether the right wingers are correct or incorrect in believing that the Second Amendment allows them to commit armed insurrection against the government should they believe it to be tyrannical. I am going to say that, if they do publicly state this, then I'll sleep happier knowing they'll have been placed on a watch list as soon as they pressed "post reply".

It is the right of every individual to defend themselves from tyranny, up to an including, taking the lives of those who tyrannize them... as the tyrants have forfeited their rights to their lives by failing to bear the responsibility that sustains their rights, to not exercise those rights to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

But how cool is it that you've come to applaud tyranny, proving that you are in point of fact; THE PROBLEM.

Feel better?

So why was Tim McVeigh executed for asserting his right to act against what he believed was a tyrannical government?

Umm because he murdered people.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Most of our in-house Leftists are Euro-peons... posing as US Citizens.

I have sometimes wondered if that is the case, because some of these guys seem clueless about basic American history. There have been a few times when I have been tempted to ask them where they to school because I was surprised by the stuff they did not know.

It is amazing to have someone who calls themselves an "American" get on here and pretend to be shocked at the factual observation that the founders viewed private gun ownership as a safeguard against a tyrannical federal government. I mean, you have to wonder just what they have read on the subject.

Actually most conservatives demonstrate that they're clueless about basic American history, the Constitution, its case law, and fundamental elements of American public policy and governance.

It's not a matter of one being tempted to ask conservatives where they attended school because clearly they haven't.

This nonsense about the Second Amendment 'trumping the First Amendment and 'authorizing' citizens to unilaterally engage in 'armed rebellion' because they subjectively perceive the government 'tyrannical' is but one of many examples of rightwing ignorance.

You can say the Earth is flat a thousand times, but it will still be round.

Gosh, are you aware that your own country was formed by "armed rebellion"?! Are you aware that your own country's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, was written to explain to the world why the American Patriots had taken up arms to throw off a government they perceived to be "tyrannical"?

By the way, the Patriots did not consider themselves "rebels." In fact, they resented that term. They--the people who fought to create the greatest experiment in free government the world has ever known--believed that British "tyranny" (they used that word a lot) left them no choice but to fight and that they were defending their natural, God-given rights. They also said they had a natural right to form an independent nation, and that this was consistent with the principles of the British constitution and their colonial charters.

You would have sided with the British if you had been alive during the American Revolution. You would have thought that the Patriots had no valid reason to resist British rule and then to seek independence. You would have said, "What are you guys 'rebelling' about--paying your fair share of taxes, the government's justified actions to maintain law and order, the government's refusal to let you expand into Indian territory?" And you would have been outraged that the Patriots resorted to force to prevent the British from confiscating their gun and ammo stockpiles at Lexington and Concord. (You do know that the first battles of the war started when the British tried to confiscate the Patriot weapons stashes in Lexington and Concord, right? Right?)

Some links to debunk your mythical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:

Washington Post Lies That It Is a Myth That the 2nd Amendment Was to Protect Americans from Government - Jeremy R. Hammond This article provides a point-by-point rebuttal to a liberal article that denied that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a safeguard against government oppression.

NRA-ILA America s Founding Fathers On The Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms This article presents some of what the founding fathers said about the right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rkba_wayment.htm This article is carried on the Constitution Society's website and was originally published in the Idaho Law Review. It traces the origins of the right to keep and bear arms and examines the main reasons for the 2nd Amendment.

The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment by Richard W. Stevens I'm including this article because it gives an interesting perspective on the 2nd Amendment: the perspective of Jewish Americans. Jews know a thing or two about the dangers of gun confiscation and why private citizens should have the right to own firearms.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

The armed citizen is the cure for bad government? Has Cruz forgotten he's in the government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not going to say whether the right wingers are correct or incorrect in believing that the Second Amendment allows them to commit armed insurrection against the government should they believe it to be tyrannical. I am going to say that, if they do publicly state this, then I'll sleep happier knowing they'll have been placed on a watch list as soon as they pressed "post reply".

It is the right of every individual to defend themselves from tyranny, up to an including, taking the lives of those who tyrannize them... as the tyrants have forfeited their rights to their lives by failing to bear the responsibility that sustains their rights, to not exercise those rights to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

But how cool is it that you've come to applaud tyranny, proving that you are in point of fact; THE PROBLEM.

Feel better?

So why was Tim McVeigh executed for asserting his right to act against what he believed was a tyrannical government?

Umm because he murdered people.

I guess you didn't read the other idiot's post. He said:

"It is the right of every individual to defend themselves from tyranny, up to an including, taking the lives of those who tyrannize them..."

He made the defense for Tim McVeigh's actions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

Now that we're safe from tyrannical pheasants, what's next? Pigeons? Bedbugs?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

That's how we won our independence, Scat. As usual....thread = fail.

And your next armed rebellion will be over what? Obamacare? Gay rights? Motor voter?

lol

Paving roads, funding science and educating our children. These people are deranged.

 

[Politico]

I'm not going to say whether the right wingers are correct or incorrect in believing that the Second Amendment allows them to commit armed insurrection against the government should they believe it to be tyrannical. I am going to say that, if they do publicly state this, then I'll sleep happier knowing they'll have been placed on a watch list as soon as they pressed "post reply".

It is the right of every individual to defend themselves from tyranny, up to an including, taking the lives of those who tyrannize them... as the tyrants have forfeited their rights to their lives by failing to bear the responsibility that sustains their rights, to not exercise those rights to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

But how cool is it that you've come to applaud tyranny, proving that you are in point of fact; THE PROBLEM.

Feel better?

So why was Tim McVeigh executed for asserting his right to act against what he believed was a tyrannical government?

Umm because he murdered people.

I guess you didn't read the other idiot's post. He said:

"It is the right of every individual to defend themselves from tyranny, up to an including, taking the lives of those who tyrannize them..."

He made the defense for Tim McVeigh's actions.

Agreed. Idiot is the operative word.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm not going to say whether the right wingers are correct or incorrect in believing that the Second Amendment allows them to commit armed insurrection against the government should they believe it to be tyrannical. I am going to say that, if they do publicly state this, then I'll sleep happier knowing they'll have been placed on a watch list as soon as they pressed "post reply".

It is the right of every individual to defend themselves from tyranny, up to an including, taking the lives of those who tyrannize them... as the tyrants have forfeited their rights to their lives by failing to bear the responsibility that sustains their rights, to not exercise those rights to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own.

But how cool is it that you've come to applaud tyranny, proving that you are in point of fact; THE PROBLEM.

Feel better?

So why was Tim McVeigh executed for asserting his right to act against what he believed was a tyrannical government?

Umm because he murdered people.

Which is EXACTLY what Ted Cruz is encouraging people to do with such reckless words: to murder people.

I've never heard of an insurrection that was not bloody, at least at the end.

Since when has it become so easy for pols to sanction murder, I ask...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk