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

[IlarMeilyr]

We have already had government tyranny in this country. Government openly denying the right to vote, freedom of assembly, right to a fair trial

This tyranny was not fought with guns, it was fought with the right to protest, a free press and a constitutional court system. The "general" was Martin Luther King

Our Constitution works and it does not need guns

This is why the POSSIBILITY of resorting to our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is ALWAYS to be considered (if considered at all) as an option of LAST RESORT.

Again, I don't see any conservatives (not counting an occasional stupid outlying statistic) who are calling for or advocating for any insurrection.

But your examples are pretty meaningless. We didn't need guns to demand the right to vote for all citizens of legal age. But the very beginnings of our country DID see its creation against the established government by resort to armed insurrection.

 

[zeke]

The implicit threat that every gun nutter on here makes is that If we don't get our way with guns, an armed rebellion is an option. It is stated daily that armed rebellion is the PURPOSE of the 2nd Amend. And even the one dipshit said the 101rst wouldn't fire on Americans, So why even consider something like whether or not the Army would follow orders or obsess over something that you say will not happen?

And if it (armed rebellion) won't happen, why make the threats that it could and obsess over your guns?

If you can't admit that armed rebellion is the fantasy of gun nutters, I think you be lying to yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Repeating the same mistake over and over while expecting a different outcome is a sign of an obsessed mind. In this case the mind in question is obsessed with guns and has obviously never researched his own quotes to determine their authenticity. Instead he has merely accepted them at face value because they fit into his gun fetish agenda.

Read: You have no answer for those statements and you are not about to admit that Ted Cruz is right.

And, by the way, I checked every one of those statements before I posted them. You can Google each of them and establish their authenticity for yourself.

In fact, when I went to repost them, plus the additional ones I had found, I almost deleted the Jefferson statement about preferring stormy liberty to peaceful slavery because a liberal here adamantly claimed that it was mistranslated from the Latin. Luckily, I decided to dig a little deeper to check the meaning of the Latin behind the statement and discovered that the quote was not a mistranslation.

This thread will stand as a supreme example of the refusal of liberals here to admit error even when presented with indisputable evidence of their error. Ted Cruz was right. The OP and the liberals who have slavishly defended it are wrong. Anyone who can read can see this is true.

None so blind as a partisan gun fetishist!

 

[Derideo_Te]

If this were 1776, you'd be wearing a red uniform and railing against "those American rebels." You reject your own country's founding principles.

Ironic!

 

[zeke]

The premise of some of the folks who rant against the right to bear arms is some truly baseless claim that, somehow, right wingers who support the 2d Amendment are actually calling for a citizen armed uprising against the dark forces of the Federal Government.

Dude, fucking Teddy Cruz just made the claim the armed revolution was an option for the people.
I guess you think ole Teddy is as crazy as it gets in the Republican party. And he want to be POTUS. LMAO.

 

[Derideo_Te]

One more thing to soothe your overwrought "mind:" I seriously doubt that anybody in the 101st Airborne would ever obey an unlawful order to attack American citizens.

If they are trying to violently overthrow the duly elected government of We the People then they fall fall into the category of "enemies within" and the 101st Airborne has sworn an oath to protect against "enemies within" so it would be a lawful order.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The framers wrote the 2nd Amendment because they had just fought a bloody war with an empire that had tried to disarm them.

Why didn't they include that in the original Constitution if it was that important?

 

[rightwinger]

We have already had government tyranny in this country. Government openly denying the right to vote, freedom of assembly, right to a fair trial

This tyranny was not fought with guns, it was fought with the right to protest, a free press and a constitutional court system. The "general" was Martin Luther King

Our Constitution works and it does not need guns

This is why the POSSIBILITY of resorting to our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is ALWAYS to be considered (if considered at all) as an option of LAST RESORT.

Again, I don't see any conservatives (not counting an occasional stupid outlying statistic) who are calling for or advocating for any insurrection.

But your examples are pretty meaningless. We didn't need guns to demand the right to vote for all citizens of legal age. But the very beginnings of our country DID see its creation against the established government by resort to armed insurrection.

Dr King knew very well that if he allowed guns to be used to fight tyranny, his movement would be framed as the bad guys and that ultimately, he would lose. Pictures of blacks being attacked by dogs and fire hoses were more effective than pictures of blacks shooting police would have been

Fantasies of taking up arms against your country are just that......fantasies
You will lose and history will record you as radical extremists and traitors

 

[2aguy]

Repeating the same mistake over and over while expecting a different outcome is a sign of an obsessed mind. In this case the mind in question is obsessed with guns and has obviously never researched his own quotes to determine their authenticity. Instead he has merely accepted them at face value because they fit into his gun fetish agenda.

Read: You have no answer for those statements and you are not about to admit that Ted Cruz is right.

And, by the way, I checked every one of those statements before I posted them. You can Google each of them and establish their authenticity for yourself.

In fact, when I went to repost them, plus the additional ones I had found, I almost deleted the Jefferson statement about preferring stormy liberty to peaceful slavery because a liberal here adamantly claimed that it was mistranslated from the Latin. Luckily, I decided to dig a little deeper to check the meaning of the Latin behind the statement and discovered that the quote was not a mistranslation.

This thread will stand as a supreme example of the refusal of liberals here to admit error even when presented with indisputable evidence of their error. Ted Cruz was right. The OP and the liberals who have slavishly defended it are wrong. Anyone who can read can see this is true.

they will not admit error because they no there is no error to have made...by this I mean that they know the truth...but they need to destroy it to get rid of guns...that is what they are doing.....they aren't in error they are in opposition to the belief that people need to own weapons for self defense against an out of control government and criminals...

The truth isn't the problem...their desires are the problem...

 

[2aguy]

We have already had government tyranny in this country. Government openly denying the right to vote, freedom of assembly, right to a fair trial

This tyranny was not fought with guns, it was fought with the right to protest, a free press and a constitutional court system. The "general" was Martin Luther King

Our Constitution works and it does not need guns

This is why the POSSIBILITY of resorting to our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is ALWAYS to be considered (if considered at all) as an option of LAST RESORT.

Again, I don't see any conservatives (not counting an occasional stupid outlying statistic) who are calling for or advocating for any insurrection.

But your examples are pretty meaningless. We didn't need guns to demand the right to vote for all citizens of legal age. But the very beginnings of our country DID see its creation against the established government by resort to armed insurrection.

Dr King knew very well that if he allowed guns to be used to fight tyranny, his movement would be framed as the bad guys and that ultimately, he would lose. Pictures of blacks being attacked by dogs and fire hoses were more effective than pictures of blacks shooting police would have been

Fantasies of taking up arms against your country are just that......fantasies
You will lose and history will record you as radical extremists and traitors

Hmmmm...is that why Dr. King tried to get a permit to carry a gun......please,do more research...and the state disarmed him.....as they did with the original gun control laws to disarm slaves and Indians...

 

[mikegriffith1]

We have already had government tyranny in this country. Government openly denying the right to vote, freedom of assembly, right to a fair trial.

This tyranny was not fought with guns, it was fought with the right to protest, a free press and a constitutional court system. The "general" was Martin Luther King

Our Constitution works and it does not need guns.

This is liberal drivel that has nothing to do with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

The abuses you mention were done by certain states, not by the federal government, and were not nationwide--and they were corrected by using constitutional means of redress. So once again you've floated an irrelevant, invalid comparison.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with a fresh memory of the fact that the British government had sought to disarm them and to establish a tyrannical form of government over each colony that would have denied them the rights mentioned in Virginia Declaration of Rights and in the Bill of Rights. The founders and others from the founding generation explained in plain English that the personal right to keep and bear arms was intended to provide the people with the means to resist the kind of tyranny that the British had tried to impose, if all other means failed.

And it is nothing short of amazing that not a single liberal here can admit this profusely documented fact of American history.

 

[2aguy]

The framers wrote the 2nd Amendment because they had just fought a bloody war with an empire that had tried to disarm them.

Why didn't they include that in the original Constitution if it was that important?

you didn't read their history did you....? some of the founders believed their was no need for a Bill of Rights because the Constitution spelled out the powers of the federal government and the federal government couldn't do anything that wasn't listed in the constitution...but wiser founders realized the wiggle room....and determined to make absolutely clear what rights the government could not touch....

do some reading...

And with the way you gun grabbers act...the smart ones put the Bill of Rights in....because they saw you coming over 200 years out...

 

[2aguy]

We have already had government tyranny in this country. Government openly denying the right to vote, freedom of assembly, right to a fair trial.

This tyranny was not fought with guns, it was fought with the right to protest, a free press and a constitutional court system. The "general" was Martin Luther King

Our Constitution works and it does not need guns.

This is liberal drivel that has nothing to do with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

The abuses you mention were done by certain states, not by the federal government, and were not nationwide--and they were corrected by using constitutional means of redress. So once again you've floated an irrelevant, invalid comparison.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with a fresh memory of the fact that the British government had sought to disarm them and to establish a tyrannical form of government over each colony that would have denied them the rights mentioned in Virginia Declaration of Rights and in the Bill of Rights. The founders and others from the founding generation explained in plain English that the personal right to keep and bear arms was intended to provide the people with the means to resist the kind of tyranny that the British had tried to impose, if all other means failed.

And it is nothing short of amazing that not a single liberal here can admit this profusely documented fact of American history.

If you have studied liberals for very long you shouldn't be surprised...saddened, dissapointed yes....but amazed...no.....

 

[Delta4Embassy]

He's right. That's what the 2nd Amednment was for. Of course, at the time the main concern was the British, and in the 200-something years since, the population's gone from a couple million to over 320 million, and now the government is the concern, not the British. So the 2nd Amendment now is all but redundant. Not only is the government better-armed than any civilian, but it's now so dispersed no civilian uprising could ever topple the totalitarian government we have now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The framers wrote the 2nd Amendment because they had just fought a bloody war with an empire that had tried to disarm them.

Why didn't they include that in the original Constitution if it was that important?

you didn't read their history did you....? some of the founders believed their was no need for a Bill of Rights because the Constitution spelled out the powers of the federal government and the federal government couldn't do anything that wasn't listed in the constitution...but wiser founders realized the wiggle room....and determined to make absolutely clear what rights the government could not touch....

do some reading...

And with the way you gun grabbers act...the smart ones put the Bill of Rights in....because they saw you coming over 200 years out...

Your ignorance is patently obvious to anyone who reads your posts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

the totalitarian government we have now.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[rightwinger]

The premise of some of the folks who rant against the right to bear arms is some truly baseless claim that, somehow, right wingers who support the 2d Amendment are actually calling for a citizen armed uprising against the dark forces of the Federal Government.

Dude, fucking Teddy Cruz just made the claim the armed revolution was an option for the people.
I guess you think ole Teddy is as crazy as it gets in the Republican party. And he want to be POTUS. LMAO.

Hard to believe that a so called "constitutional scholar" such as Cruz is calling for armed insurrection over using the vast powers of the Constitution to resolve grievances

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We have already had government tyranny in this country. Government openly denying the right to vote, freedom of assembly, right to a fair trial

This tyranny was not fought with guns, it was fought with the right to protest, a free press and a constitutional court system. The "general" was Martin Luther King

Our Constitution works and it does not need guns

This is why the POSSIBILITY of resorting to our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is ALWAYS to be considered (if considered at all) as an option of LAST RESORT.

Again, I don't see any conservatives (not counting an occasional stupid outlying statistic) who are calling for or advocating for any insurrection.

But your examples are pretty meaningless. We didn't need guns to demand the right to vote for all citizens of legal age. But the very beginnings of our country DID see its creation against the established government by resort to armed insurrection.

Dr King knew very well that if he allowed guns to be used to fight tyranny, his movement would be framed as the bad guys and that ultimately, he would lose. Pictures of blacks being attacked by dogs and fire hoses were more effective than pictures of blacks shooting police would have been

Fantasies of taking up arms against your country are just that......fantasies
You will lose and history will record you as radical extremists and traitors

Again, the fantasies are all yours.

You are persisting in the use of your strawman in order to make your silly argument appear slightly more substantial.

We get it. YOU oppose guns and gun rights.

You attempt to marginalize those who disagree with you by claiming (without a truthful basis) that those with whom you disagree "want armed insurrection."

Since your argument is premised on a dishonest contention, your conclusions do not have the force of logic, truth or validity to them. Face it. Your "conclusions" are simply restatements of your other premise: "guns bad."

 

[2aguy]

He's right. That's what the 2nd Amednment was for. Of course, at the time the main concern was the British, and in the 200-something years since, the population's gone from a couple million to over 320 million, and now the government is the concern, not the British. So the 2nd Amendment now is all but redundant. Not only is the government better-armed than any civilian, but it's now so dispersed no civilian uprising could ever topple the totalitarian government we have now.

Tell that to the Vietnamese, the taliban, and the terrorists in Iraq.....

 

[2aguy]

The premise of some of the folks who rant against the right to bear arms is some truly baseless claim that, somehow, right wingers who support the 2d Amendment are actually calling for a citizen armed uprising against the dark forces of the Federal Government.

Dude, fucking Teddy Cruz just made the claim the armed revolution was an option for the people.
I guess you think ole Teddy is as crazy as it gets in the Republican party. And he want to be POTUS. LMAO.

Hard to believe that a so called "constitutional scholar" such as Cruz is calling for armed insurrection over using the vast powers of the Constitution to resolve grievances

Yes...and as a leftist you must lie about him......armed resistance is what happens after the government blows through the safeguards of the Constitution......moron...