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

[rightwinger]

The 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution as a safeguard against a government that became oppressive...he is just stating the truth..........

and of course.....say the truth about something and it burns the democrats like a cross to a vampire......

It was put there to be able to raise militias

The Constitution says nothing about taking up arms against your country

 

[mikegriffith1]

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

Oh, gosh. REALLY? Are you really making that idiotic comparison? REALLY? That's just brain-dead dumb.

Are you guys EVER going to deal specifically with the facts that have been presented to you? It seems you and others never deal with specific counter-arguments. You just evade and deflect with idiotic replies like the one above and then pronounce yourselves the winners.

How about this: How about if you just deal with the founding fathers' statements about private gun ownership being a check against tyranny and about how armed citizens in the states could rise up against the federal government if it became tyrannical? Some of these statements are even in The Federalist Papers. How about you specifically address these statements?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Cruz is appealing to the rabid right rabble because he wants to own that demographic and thus become a "king maker" in the primaries. By being the leader of the most virulent and most radical wing of the party he can oppose anyone who he considers to be too "moderate".

As a political strategy it is risky because it sets him up in direct conflict with the establishment wing of the GOP. However if he gets his "power base" he can threaten to run as a 3rd party "spoiler" if he doesn't get on the ticket.

From the GOP establishment POV that is a lose-lose proposition. Having Cruz on the ticket will derail the chances of anyone sane making it to the Oval office just as Palin sank McCain.

The GOP establishment might just decide to sit this one out and let the crazies in the clown car decide the ticket between themselves and see what happens.

 

[mikegriffith1]

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

Oh, gosh. REALLY? Are you really making that idiotic comparison? REALLY? That's just brain-dead dumb.

Are you guys EVER going to deal specifically with the facts that have been presented to you? It seems you and others never deal with specific counter-arguments. You just evade and deflect with idiotic replies like the one above and then pronounce yourselves the winners.

And, no, the 2nd Amendment did NOT just apply to militias. That myth has been debunked a million times over. I've already provided links that specifically address that myth.

How about this: How about if you just deal with the founding fathers' statements about private gun ownership being a check against tyranny and about how armed citizens in the states could rise up against the federal government if it became tyrannical? Some of these statements are even in The Federalist Papers. How about you specifically address these statements? (Of course, that means you'll have to read them first.)

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Oh, gosh. REALLY? Are you really making that idiotic comparison? REALLY? That's just brain-dead dumb.

Are you guys EVER going to deal specifically with the facts that have been presented to you? It seems you and others never deal with specific counter-arguments. You just evade and deflect with idiotic replies like the one above and then pronounce yourselves the winners.

How about this: How about if you just deal with the founding fathers' statements about private gun ownership being a check against tyranny and about how armed citizens in the states could rise up against the federal government if it became tyrannical? Some of these statements are even in The Federalist Papers. How about you specifically address these statements?

Those have been debunked already.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Oh, gosh. REALLY? Are you really making that idiotic comparison? REALLY? That's just brain-dead dumb.

Are you guys EVER going to deal specifically with the facts that have been presented to you? It seems you and others never deal with specific counter-arguments. You just evade and deflect with idiotic replies like the one above and then pronounce yourselves the winners.

How about this: How about if you just deal with the founding fathers' statements about private gun ownership being a check against tyranny and about how armed citizens in the states could rise up against the federal government if it became tyrannical? Some of these statements are even in The Federalist Papers. How about you specifically address these statements?

Tim McVeigh DID rise up against a federal government he believed had become tyrannical.

Are you denying that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution as a safeguard against a government that became oppressive...he is just stating the truth..........

and of course.....say the truth about something and it burns the democrats like a cross to a vampire......

It was put there to be able to raise militias

The Constitution says nothing about taking up arms against your country

No, actually I think it does. It makes it treason, and makes it a federal crime.

It is thus insane to argue that the second amendment is in the Constitution to facilitate the commission of crimes against the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

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

I suspect our next revolution will be over wedding cakes

There is only so much conservatives can take

 

[rightwinger]

The 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution as a safeguard against a government that became oppressive...he is just stating the truth..........

and of course.....say the truth about something and it burns the democrats like a cross to a vampire......

It was put there to be able to raise militias

The Constitution says nothing about taking up arms against your country

No, actually I think it does. It makes it treason, and makes it a federal crime.

It is thus insane to argue that the second amendment is in the Constitution to facilitate the commission of crimes against the Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution is to make it so citizens have other options to taking up arms against their country

Free speech, right to assemble, free press and most importantly, a right to vote

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

I suspect our next revolution will be over wedding cakes

There is only so much conservatives can take

As in let them not eat wedding cake?

 

[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

Cruz is appealing to the rabid right rabble because he wants to own that demographic and thus become a "king maker" in the primaries. By being the leader of the most virulent and most radical wing of the party he can oppose anyone who he considers to be too "moderate".

As a political strategy it is risky because it sets him up in direct conflict with the establishment wing of the GOP. However if he gets his "power base" he can threaten to run as a 3rd party "spoiler" if he doesn't get on the ticket.

From the GOP establishment POV that is a lose-lose proposition. Having Cruz on the ticket will derail the chances of anyone sane making it to the Oval office just as Palin sank McCain.

The GOP establishment might just decide to sit this one out and let the crazies in the clown car decide the ticket between themselves and see what happens.

They may have no choice. Carson is declaring on May 5th. Huckabee announced last night that his decision will be made on May 5th. Santorum is planning a 2nd run. Those three plus Cruz and Paul make for 5 hard core righties, all of whom could win some primary states. Bush and Walker are sure to declare, with Rubio that makes three moderates, four if Kasich jumps in. And then there's Christie. That would make for 5 moderates.

5 hard righties, 5 moderates. And then there's Fiorina and Trump...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[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?

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

I suspect our next revolution will be over wedding cakes

There is only so much conservatives can take

The double-layered, three-tier fudge-marble battle of Portland!

Death by excessive exposure to icing!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Cruz is appealing to the rabid right rabble because he wants to own that demographic and thus become a "king maker" in the primaries. By being the leader of the most virulent and most radical wing of the party he can oppose anyone who he considers to be too "moderate".

As a political strategy it is risky because it sets him up in direct conflict with the establishment wing of the GOP. However if he gets his "power base" he can threaten to run as a 3rd party "spoiler" if he doesn't get on the ticket.

From the GOP establishment POV that is a lose-lose proposition. Having Cruz on the ticket will derail the chances of anyone sane making it to the Oval office just as Palin sank McCain.

The GOP establishment might just decide to sit this one out and let the crazies in the clown car decide the ticket between themselves and see what happens.

They may have no choice. Carson is declaring on May 5th. Huckabee announced last night that his decision will be made on May 5th. Santorum is planning a 2nd run. Those three plus Cruz and Paul make for 5 hard core righties, all of whom could win some primary states. Bush and Walker are sure to declare, with Rubio that makes three moderates, four if Kasich jumps in. And then there's Christie. That would make for 5 moderates.

5 hard righties, 5 moderates. And then there's Fiorina and Trump...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The extreme right feels that they have been "shut out" for the past couple of elections so they are not going to stand for another "moderate" IMO.

Cruz knows this and is pandering like crazy to the crazies.

The Huckster wants to own the religious right and get himself on the ticket.

Paul is pandering to the Libertarian loonies.

They are going to be going at each other like a Mad Max movie score.

The entertainment value is going to drive up the ratings.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Some quotes from the founding fathers and others from the founding era and a couple decades thereafter:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn’t Jefferson’s proposal of ‘No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms’ adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755

"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 [Modern liberals misuse the word "militia." They equate it to the National Guard. There was no such thing back then.]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

 

[Derideo_Te]

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

Jefferson never actually wrote that sentence!

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello

This is what he actually wrote to Madison.

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

Translated directly it means "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."

Like all gun fetishists you believe what you want to believe rather than the facts.

The Founding Fathers were not rabid gun fetishists like yourselves.

Instead they understood that a gun was a tool necessary at the time to protect oneself since most people lived in the presence of wild animals.

There is no such justification today except for those who actually live in rural areas. A handgun for self defense in your own arm is the modern equivalent. The right to own such a weapon is legitimate and as an American I will uphold that right for others lest I lose it myself.

However owning an armory of lethal weapons and ammunition designed for combat is a fetish. Wanting to overthrow the duly elected government of We the People by violence is sedition. Trying to invent an excuse of "tyranny" where none exists is disingenuous pandering by Cruz.

The Founding Fathers would be appalled at the gun fetish society that we have today because it doesn't fit the definition of the "tumult of liberty".

 

[rightwinger]

Some quotes from the founding fathers and others from the founding era and a couple decades thereafter:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn’t Jefferson’s proposal of ‘No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms’ adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755

"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 [Modern liberals misuse the word "militia." They equate it to the National Guard. There was no such thing back then.]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

None of that made it into the Constitution

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

No they don't. Are you insane?

The military are on the side of government..........ahhhhh, conservatives don't like government, so I wonder how they think the military would be on their side!

They can twist almost anything to fuel their agenda!


I've read that there are approximately 40K militia in the US. That's 40K scared little people, feverishly buying up ammo for their pop guns so they can take on the biggest military in the history of the world. What can they possibly be thinking?

I don't know why its so hard for people like Stephanie , Soggy in NOLA and the rabid militia types to understand that, within the law, the military will follow orders to uphold the oath they sign. The nilitary works because they follow orders. The individual becomes part of the hive. The US military has fired on US civilians before and, if need be, would again. Anyone who doubts that might want to read the oath they sign.

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Oath of Office (for officers):

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Before you raise your right hand, make sure you understand what you are swearing or attesting to. The oath of enlistment should not be taken lightly, you will be bound by it for the next 4 to 6 years at a minimum.

 

[Mr Natural]

You people haven't been paying attention! The Constitution is no longer in effect. Obama trampled it years ago.

So now those oaths military people signed are no longer valid so they are free to join in with the kooks and save our country from tyranny!

 

[BluesLegend]

This country has survived far worse than the lawless America hating left. Relax these liberals will be defeated they are already on their way out of power, kicked to the curb.

 

[Mertex]

I don't know why its so hard for people like Stephanie , Soggy in NOLA and the rabid militia types to understand that, within the law, the military will follow orders to uphold the oath they sign.

Because they are mental pigmies.