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

[IlarMeilyr]

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

It is hard to believe. Largely because it is a false claim you continue to so irresponsibly make.

Ted has called for no such thing. As you know.

 

[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

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...

Your attempt to rewrite history that the reason Dr King did not use armed insurrection was because he could not get a gun permit is repulsive

 

[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

It is hard to believe. Largely because it is a false claim you continue to so irresponsibly make.

Ted has called for no such thing. As you know.

Why would Ted Cruz be advocating armed insurrection over the powers in the constitution?

 

[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...

Your attempt to rewrite history that the reason Dr King did not use armed insurrection was because he could not get a gun permit is repulsive

Fuck you half wit......he wanted a permit because the democrats threatened to kill him and his family and he wanted to protect them.....moron....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

And if they sprout unicorn horns and fart rainbows, then Harry Potter might get elected President of the newly re-unified Empire of Great Britain and Her Majesty's Colonial Possessions.

But if we are dealing with facts, there is not a chance that the 101st Airborne would EVER follow an unlawful order to attack American citizens.

And your baseless fantasy of an armed insurrection against even our demonstrably lawless Federal Government remains just that: fantasy.

 

[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 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.

The second amendment was written to form militias

It is as obsolete as the third

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

It is hard to believe. Largely because it is a false claim you continue to so irresponsibly make.

Ted has called for no such thing. As you know.

Why would Ted Cruz be advocating armed insurrection over the powers in the constitution?

Who said he is advocating any such thing?

Why would you "ask" such an utterly baseless question?

 

[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 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.

The second amendment was written to form militias

* * * *

No. It wasn't. Your repetition of that already refuted claim doesn't bolster your position.

 

[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

It is hard to believe. Largely because it is a false claim you continue to so irresponsibly make.

Ted has called for no such thing. As you know.

Why would Ted Cruz be advocating armed insurrection over the powers in the constitution?

Conservative threats against Dr King are not the government are they?

 

[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 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.

The second amendment was written to form militias

* * * *

No. It wasn't. Your repetition of that already refuted claim doesn't bolster your position.

Hardly refuted...read the fucking amendment

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Dud, that's NOT what Ted was saying, you idiot.

 

[rightwinger]

r 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


Why isn't Cruz advocating using our Constitutional rights to fight tyranny?

It has worked for 200 years

 

[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.

And if they sprout unicorn horns and fart rainbows, then Harry Potter might get elected President of the newly re-unified Empire of Great Britain and Her Majesty's Colonial Possessions.

But if we are dealing with facts, there is not a chance that the 101st Airborne would EVER follow an unlawful order to attack American citizens.

And your baseless fantasy of an armed insurrection against even our demonstrably lawless Federal Government remains just that: fantasy.

Thank you for proving the point that you believe that an armed insurrection would succeed against this imaginary "lawless Federal Government" because the 101st Airborne would abandon their oath.



The 101st RightWing Keyboard Brigade is one of the most delusional aspects of USMB.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

OMG. This is tiresome. HERE is what Cruz actually wrote:

"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."

What PART of that is actually wrong?

Is it the contention of the lib advocates of abolishing gun rights that it IS simply for hunting or target practice? I don't think so.

Is it the contention of the lib advocates of abolishing gun rights that it IS a right limited to JUST protecting your home, family and life against the criminal element committing some home invasion burglary attempts? I don't think so.

IS there something historically inaccurate about Cruz' claim that it was ALSO designed to serve as an ULTIMATE check against governmental tyranny?

Come on all you lib scholars. Step up to the plate. Be the first on your block to be honest about it.

ONE of the big reasons there even exists a 2d Amendment is because it was considered necessary at the time of the Founding and the Framing to explicitly protect our rights -- in order to serve as a check, ultimately, against the possible tyrannical efforts of the "central" government.

Bonus question: Can any of you libs at long last ADMIT that "ultimately" was not simply a throw away word?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

And if they sprout unicorn horns and fart rainbows, then Harry Potter might get elected President of the newly re-unified Empire of Great Britain and Her Majesty's Colonial Possessions.

But if we are dealing with facts, there is not a chance that the 101st Airborne would EVER follow an unlawful order to attack American citizens.

And your baseless fantasy of an armed insurrection against even our demonstrably lawless Federal Government remains just that: fantasy.

Thank you for proving the point that you believe that an armed insurrection would succeed against this imaginary "lawless Federal Government" because the 101st Airborne would abandon their oath.



The 101st RightWing Keyboard Brigade is one of the most delusional aspects of USMB.

Thank you for proving that you lollberal hacks think our military would illegally obey an illegal order.

 

[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 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.

The second amendment was written to form militias

* * * *

No. It wasn't. Your repetition of that already refuted claim doesn't bolster your position.

Hardly refuted...read the fucking amendment

I have and unlike you, I actually grasped the meaning of the words in the Amendment, plus its historical underpinnings PLUS the "interpretation" on what it means as recently (and officially) rendered by SCOTUS decisions.

I understand that you have a burning need to defend your wrong and baseless position. But don't pretend that you have the first damn clue on the topic. You obviously don't.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

And if they sprout unicorn horns and fart rainbows, then Harry Potter might get elected President of the newly re-unified Empire of Great Britain and Her Majesty's Colonial Possessions.

But if we are dealing with facts, there is not a chance that the 101st Airborne would EVER follow an unlawful order to attack American citizens.

And your baseless fantasy of an armed insurrection against even our demonstrably lawless Federal Government remains just that: fantasy.

Thank you for proving the point that you believe that an armed insurrection would succeed against this imaginary "lawless Federal Government" because the 101st Airborne would abandon their oath.



The 101st RightWing Keyboard Brigade is one of the most delusional aspects of USMB.

Thank you for proving that you lollberal hacks think our military would illegally obey an illegal order.

Another fantasy of gun nuts

Not just that they can defeat our armies with their shotguns but that somehow our troops will support THEM when they take up arms against our country and start to kill soldiers

 

[jasonnfree]

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...

Your attempt to rewrite history that the reason Dr King did not use armed insurrection was because he could not get a gun permit is repulsive

Fuck you half wit......he wanted a permit because the democrats threatened to kill him and his family and he wanted to protect them.....moron....

Democrats they were, but they switched to the republican party in protest to the civil rights movement. Quit trying to act like republicans are freedom riders.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

And if they sprout unicorn horns and fart rainbows, then Harry Potter might get elected President of the newly re-unified Empire of Great Britain and Her Majesty's Colonial Possessions.

But if we are dealing with facts, there is not a chance that the 101st Airborne would EVER follow an unlawful order to attack American citizens.

And your baseless fantasy of an armed insurrection against even our demonstrably lawless Federal Government remains just that: fantasy.

Thank you for proving the point that you believe that an armed insurrection would succeed against this imaginary "lawless Federal Government" because the 101st Airborne would abandon their oath.



The 101st RightWing Keyboard Brigade is one of the most delusional aspects of USMB.

Thank you for proving that you lollberal hacks think our military would illegally obey an illegal order.

Another fantasy of gun nuts

Not just that they can defeat our armies with their shotguns but that somehow our troops will support THEM when they take up arms against our country and start to kill soldiers

Again, the fantasy is that the men who wear this nation's uniforms would obey unlawful and immoral orders.

And the entire discussion is wrapped around a rather silly claim that there would ever be a day when our citizenry might choose to resort to an armed revolution again. That is the way we started. It was pretty improbable then, but far less likely today.

It is held out solely as an ultimate tool of last resort. It is not something anybody is calling for. And you know it.

You anti-gun nuts are pretty wholly dishonest in this entire debate.

 

[rightwinger]

Since we are talking gun nut fantasies, let's talk about the "from my cold dead hands" fantasy

In this fantasy, gun nuts will fight to the death to protect their arms

So, if We the People, as part of our constitutional right, pass legislation banning assault rifles with 50 round magazines........gun nuts will fire on peace officers doing their job

What makes you think those peace officers are going to side with YOU