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

[Dana7360]

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?

Jesus, you're stupid. Ted Cruz is absolutely correct, you fool. Read the founding documents. My God, you clowns on the left, who claim such intelligence are certainly uninformed as a group.

Get it together, will you?

Thomas Jefferson:

1. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Lord help those poor morons if they ever read the Magna Carta and find ARMED insurection is LEGAL.

The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it.

See how that works?

I've noticed that people like the one you replied to have a problem with confusing the pilgrims with the founders of the United States of America.

Yes the pilgrims brought the magna carta with them when they came here but they didn't establish the United States. They established a colony of England. It was mostly a theocratic monarchy with the king being in England. These are also the same people who burned mostly women, some men, at the stake for being witches.

However the US wasn't established until over one hundred years after the pilgrims and was only possible through revolutionary war.

When the founders of the US established our government, constitution and bill of rights, the magna carta basically became obsolete. It also would have had to be ratified by the new congress and president. The constitution contains some of the same principles of the magna carta but goes much farther.

You have to forgive our history deficient right wingers. They have no idea what they're talking about most of the time.

 

[Statistikhengst]

He's absolutely correct. Why do you disagree? There is a reason why Ferguson was a protest that was able to last for several days with only a few clashes with police that involved tear gas and some minor assaults as opposed to resembling the massacre at Tiananmen Square.

Let me get this straight!

You are claiming that the only reason why the cops never gun down innocent protesters is because they are afraid that the protesters might shoot back?

Seriously?

No, I didn't say it was the only reason. You did.

But, I assure you, it's one hell of a deterrent, which is why you don't see the kind of abuses in this country that you see in places in like North Korea, Cuba, China, etc where only the government has access to that kind of force.

You're leaving out one very important part of this.

The bundy people with guns had women and children with them. In fact they used those women as human shields.

The government didn't want a bunch of dead women and children.

That's the main reason why the bundy people got away with that they did.

Yes, it was an incredibly act of cowardice, very reminiscent of Hamas, on the part of the Bundy-Idiots.

Bundy...
Wasn't he that moocher that refused to pay taxes on his land or something, and lead an armed protest with his pals? I'll have to look him up..

Yepp. That's him. The one who called black people "The Negro". A true Tea-Party Patriot!

 

[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.

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

Actually the 2nd is FOR the elimination of a illigitimate government. That is it's sole purpose. That's why the founders WANTED the populace to be armed as well as the army. Hell there was (and actually still is) a private artillery company in the US. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston has been in existence since the 1600's.

Now they are more of a social club but in the past they were heavily involved in the Revolution and American Civil War.

 

[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

Actually the 2nd is FOR the elimination of a illigitimate government. That is it's sole purpose. That's why the founders WANTED the populace to be armed as well as the army. Hell there was (and actually still is) a private artillery company in the US. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston has been in existence since the 1600's.

Now they are more of a social club but in the past they were heavily involved in the Revolution and American Civil War.

Hmmmmmm, not quite:


Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The only real and actual reason for the bearing of arms given in the 2nd amendment is "being necessary to the security of a free State". Nothing else is given as an actual ground for having the amendment.


There are, however, many interpretations:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This is an important clue, I think:

"Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution
Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.[47]
Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

• enabling the people to organize a militia system.
• participating in law enforcement;
• deterring tyrannical government;[56]
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[57][58][59]
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".[60]

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

Again, where does it explicity state in the 2nd amendment that the right to bear arms means that people can shoot the government?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And with this kind of commentary, calling a Jew a "Brown Shirt"...

LOL! How cool is it that a Jew, who has turned from his faith, demands to be counted among the faithful?

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the Fundamental elements of Evil and the Ideological Left by which evil is advanced... politically.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Didn't you know, Satistikhengst ?

To be an American you have to ...

Recognize, respect, defend, and adhere to the principles that define America.

The core principle of American democracy is that you should have the right to do anything you please as long as you are not harming anyone else,

and it's the responsibility of the government to prove that you are.

LOL! Adorable...

This from the idiot who claims that one has no right to possess and use a firearm in defense of their freedom.

ROFL!

You can NOT make this crap up!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again, where does it explicity state in the 2nd amendment that the right to bear arms means that people can shoot the government?

Right there at the beginning... (But how cool is it that you missed it, despite such being set as the highest priority in the advancing of the protection of the duty to do so.)

Amendment 2:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "

See how that works?

The Free State, OKA: the State of Freedom... is the purpose for protecting the right to own and effectively use state of the art; thus highly effective firearms through limiting the power of the government from the legitimate power to do so.

Therefore we can rest assured in the duty to destroy any government which would seek to do so.

And that's all we're really waiting on... . Feel free to get on with it, and if you're looking for guidance from us, the sooner, the better as far as we; the Americans, are concerned.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do some research.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

- Thomas Jefferson



Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

Yet another BS quote falsely attributed to Jefferson!

When government fears the people there is liberty... Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello

Status: We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," nor any evidence that he wrote its listed variations.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the liberal answer to all those quotes is that ONE of them was slightly mistranslated.

How about all the others?

You know, guys (liberals), the problem is that even when confronted with plain evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a check against egregious usurpation/tyranny, you just can't bring yourselves to admit your error, probably because you simply don't believe in America as it was founded and intended to be.

Your reading comprehension shortcoming is your problem.

The 2nd Amendment was never intended to be a means to oppose your paranoid belief about some mythical "government tyranny".

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He's absolutely correct. Why do you disagree? There is a reason why Ferguson was a protest that was able to last for several days with only a few clashes with police that involved tear gas and some minor assaults as opposed to resembling the massacre at Tiananmen Square.

Let me get this straight!

You are claiming that the only reason why the cops never gun down innocent protesters is because they are afraid that the protesters might shoot back?

Seriously?

No, I didn't say it was the only reason. You did.

But, I assure you, it's one hell of a deterrent, which is why you don't see the kind of abuses in this country that you see in places in like North Korea, Cuba, China, etc where only the government has access to that kind of force.

You're leaving out one very important part of this.

The bundy people with guns had women and children with them. In fact they used those women as human shields.

The government didn't want a bunch of dead women and children.

That's the main reason why the bundy people got away with that they did.

Yes, exactly.

Rabid RWs have no more use for women and children than any other terrorists.

If only they were fetuses ...

 

[Antares]

"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. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
The Federalist 46

Enough with the dumbass german kids "hypothesis".

 

[Vandalshandle]

As a political party, the Federalists controlled the government until 1801. Of course, they totally ceased to exist after 1815. But somehow, voting them into oblivion did not remove the Federalist papers from the ash can of history.

Federalist Party - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Antares]

As a political party, the Federalists controlled the government until 1801. Of course, they totally ceased to exist after 1815. But somehow, voting them into oblivion did not remove the Federalist papers from the ash can of history.

Federalist Party - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Of course, mustn't listen to those who were closest to the situation....that would be well....DISASTROUS to the fairy tales of the modern gun haters.

 

[Vandalshandle]

If hate guns so much, why do I own 5 of them?

 

[Dana7360]

Ted Cruz obviously doesn't realize the sillness of his own claim, as armed militias or armed citizens for that matter are no match for the National Guard, let alone the full forces of the US military. You would have better luck wishing generals stage a military coup.

Why cant liberals get it through their heads that the military would be on the side of the people,not the government.
When Nancy Pelosi and the DHS says returning vets are a terrorist threat and Feinstein calls all vets mentally ill,do you truly believe they'll fight for the liberals?

Some of them would. How many ex military are there? More than enough to deal with the few that would choose the obama.

Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you actually believe the crazy shit you spout?

So they say they love America but want to over throw our government.

The politicians who say they hate government run for government office.

These people are nuts.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I love just about everything about America. I think that makes me a commie....

 

[2aguy]

If hate guns so much, why do I own 5 of them?

That is typical of anti gun nuts....they don't want other people to have guns...they are more than happy to have their own guns or even better, hire people to carry their guns for them.......

 

[hipeter924]

If hate guns so much, why do I own 5 of them?

Because 'only Republicans'TM and stereotypical black criminals own guns, and all Democrats 'hate guns' - according to Fox News.

 

[2aguy]

Ted Cruz obviously doesn't realize the sillness of his own claim, as armed militias or armed citizens for that matter are no match for the National Guard, let alone the full forces of the US military. You would have better luck wishing generals stage a military coup.

Why cant liberals get it through their heads that the military would be on the side of the people,not the government.
When Nancy Pelosi and the DHS says returning vets are a terrorist threat and Feinstein calls all vets mentally ill,do you truly believe they'll fight for the liberals?

Some of them would. How many ex military are there? More than enough to deal with the few that would choose the obama.

Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you actually believe the crazy shit you spout?

So they say they love America but want to over throw our government.

The politicians who say they hate government run for government office.

These people are nuts.

Of course you distort the truth, as you anti gunners always do even when you don't have to....just like when hilary lies when there is no reason to.....no one said they want to overthrow the government...and of course you know this.....what has been stated is that being able to overthrow a government that has turned on the citizens to a point where armed resistance and removal of the government is the only option left to keep the people safe, is what the 2nd Amendment provides for......

 

[2aguy]

If hate guns so much, why do I own 5 of them?

Because 'only Republicans'TM and stereotypical black criminals own guns, and all Democrats 'hate guns' - according to Fox News.

and stereotypical black criminals own guns

Well...to this point....in democrat controlled cities, the gun control laws forced on the citizens by gun grabbing democrats has pretty much ensured that good, law abiding honest citizens who happen to be black can't own guns for their own protection....hence.....blacks who are criminals tend to be the only ones in these killing zones in these democrat controlled cities who carry guns.....

And ...

and all Democrats 'hate guns'

I will make this clearer....all democrats at the highest level of leadership of the democrat party hate guns and want to ban them...and will ban them if they ever get that power....the rest of the democrats vote for these gun grabbers and so give aid and comfort to the democrats who do hate guns.......

Is that more clear for you.....?