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

[2aguy]

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.

Wow...you have no clue what you are talking about....it makes sense to you that the party that freed the slaves from the democrats, fought jim crow with the freed blacks, and helped them get their civil rights.....just switched with the democrats....who owned the slaves, started jim crow and killed blacks and republicans to keep them from voting.....

Really...that makes sense to you? Who the do you think the freedom riders were....and those cops with the nightsticks...and the dogs, and the nooses, and the bombs...those were democrats.......not Republicans......

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

What makes you imagine that your fantasy "law" would pass muster on any constitutional challenge?

If it is so smart and justifiable on a Constitutional level, why is it not already an enforced law "on the books?"

 

[zeke]

We get it. YOU oppose guns and gun rights.

I oppose OBSESSING over guns and gun rights. , I oppose this continuous monologue that guns are being taken away from law abiding citizens. And I have guns. And NO ONE from the government has come to take my guns in my lifetime. Not even close.

I live in a state that lets you carry in bars and is now trying to keep the police from taking a gun from a person when there has been a domestic violence call but no one is being charged at that time. SO let the gun stay in the house and see what happens is this legislatures purpose. But DO NOT take the fucking gun.

Guns are a tool. If you want to buy and use that tool, have at it. But quit OBSESSING over it.
Stick with obsessing over gays. At least they are people instead of a thing.

 

[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

What makes you imagine that your fantasy "law" would pass muster on any constitutional challenge?

If it is so smart and justifiable on a Constitutional level, why is it not already an enforced law "on the books?"

It already has.
We have had assault weapons bans and they are constitutional

So, when gun nuts go all........from my cold dead hands on assault rifles

What makes you think peace officers or the military would support THEM when they start firing?

In Waco, peace officers tried to serve a warrant to search for illegal weapons. The gun nuts fired on federal agents and killed four.

Why didn't those federal agents side with Koresh?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We get it. YOU oppose guns and gun rights.

I oppose OBSESSING over guns and gun rights. , I oppose this continuous monologue that guns are being taken away from law abiding citizens. And I have guns. And NO ONE from the government has come to take my guns in my lifetime. Not even close.

I live in a state that lets you carry in bars and is now trying to keep the police from taking a gun from a person when there has been a domestic violence call but no one is being charged at that time. SO let the gun stay in the house and see what happens is this legislatures purpose. But DO NOT take the fucking gun.

Guns are a tool. If you want to buy and use that tool, have at it. But quit OBSESSING over it.
Stick with obsessing over gays. At least they are people instead of a thing.

It is an obsession. Based on the evidence, though, it appears to be an obsession for many of our libs.

Sad.

OTOH: this is a board for discussion. If they wish to obsess, that's their right. If we choose to reply, that's our right.

But your post raises another question. What exactly is it about gays that makes you obsessive?

 

[rightwinger]

We get it. YOU oppose guns and gun rights.

I oppose OBSESSING over guns and gun rights. , I oppose this continuous monologue that guns are being taken away from law abiding citizens. And I have guns. And NO ONE from the government has come to take my guns in my lifetime. Not even close.

I live in a state that lets you carry in bars and is now trying to keep the police from taking a gun from a person when there has been a domestic violence call but no one is being charged at that time. SO let the gun stay in the house and see what happens is this legislatures purpose. But DO NOT take the fucking gun.

Guns are a tool. If you want to buy and use that tool, have at it. But quit OBSESSING over it.
Stick with obsessing over gays. At least they are people instead of a thing.

I'm with you Zeke

I have no problems with having guns for hunting, sport or self defense

But when gun nuts rant about taking up arms against MY country, about not impacting the gun rights of wife beaters, crazies and fellows.

Just turns my stomach

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

What makes you imagine that your fantasy "law" would pass muster on any constitutional challenge?

If it is so smart and justifiable on a Constitutional level, why is it not already an enforced law "on the books?"

It already has.
We have had assault weapons bans and they are constitutional

So, when gun nuts go all........from my cold dead hands on assault rifles

What makes you think peace officers or the military would support THEM when they start firing?

In Waco, peace officers tried to serve a warrant to search for illegal weapons. The gun nuts fired on federal agents and killed four.

Why didn't those federal agents side with Koresh?

If we already have this law you are worrying about, then where is all this "prying from cold dead hands" thing that seems to have you so worried?

What exactly is an "assault" weapon? How do we distinguish between an "assault" weapon and a firearm that doesn't engage in any chance of an assault?

Why would ANYONE ever side with the likes of Koresh? WTF are you babbling about?

 

[2aguy]

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

What makes you imagine that your fantasy "law" would pass muster on any constitutional challenge?

If it is so smart and justifiable on a Constitutional level, why is it not already an enforced law "on the books?"

It already has.
We have had assault weapons bans and they are constitutional

So, when gun nuts go all........from my cold dead hands on assault rifles

What makes you think peace officers or the military would support THEM when they start firing?

In Waco, peace officers tried to serve a warrant to search for illegal weapons. The gun nuts fired on federal agents and killed four.

Why didn't those federal agents side with Koresh?

So.....when they caused the death of those children through their actions...you supported that? When they could have arrested koresh when he was walking down the street....the raid was for justifying their budget....not for searching for illegal weapons.....the police had been to that place countless times peacefully........

And if they had a warrant....you obey the law...simple as that....and we are protected by the Constitution against "Unreasonable" search and seizure and we have a right to a jury of our peers, and legal counsel and a right to a redress of grievances....

And if all of those fail, and are ignored by the government and the people feel they are being persecuted...that is when the 2nd Amendment takes over.....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We get it. YOU oppose guns and gun rights.

I oppose OBSESSING over guns and gun rights. , I oppose this continuous monologue that guns are being taken away from law abiding citizens. And I have guns. And NO ONE from the government has come to take my guns in my lifetime. Not even close.

I live in a state that lets you carry in bars and is now trying to keep the police from taking a gun from a person when there has been a domestic violence call but no one is being charged at that time. SO let the gun stay in the house and see what happens is this legislatures purpose. But DO NOT take the fucking gun.

Guns are a tool. If you want to buy and use that tool, have at it. But quit OBSESSING over it.
Stick with obsessing over gays. At least they are people instead of a thing.

I'm with you Zeke

I have no problems with having guns for hunting, sport or self defense

But when gun nuts rant about taking up arms against MY country, about not impacting the gun rights of wife beaters, crazies and fellows.

Just turns my stomach

That ^ fact remains irrelevant because -- whether YOU like it or not -- it remains an historical FACT that one of the underpinnings of our Second Amendment IS exactly that: another (ultimate) check on the risk of a tyrannical government.

You are not required to like the fact that it IS an historical fact. It is even okay if the FACT turns your stomach. It is no less of a FACT on that basis.

 

[rightwinger]

Ted Cruzis just being irresponsible

Basically SCUM

Who feeds on the fantasies of gun nuts to take up arms against our country

 

[rightwinger]

We get it. YOU oppose guns and gun rights.

I oppose OBSESSING over guns and gun rights. , I oppose this continuous monologue that guns are being taken away from law abiding citizens. And I have guns. And NO ONE from the government has come to take my guns in my lifetime. Not even close.

I live in a state that lets you carry in bars and is now trying to keep the police from taking a gun from a person when there has been a domestic violence call but no one is being charged at that time. SO let the gun stay in the house and see what happens is this legislatures purpose. But DO NOT take the fucking gun.

Guns are a tool. If you want to buy and use that tool, have at it. But quit OBSESSING over it.
Stick with obsessing over gays. At least they are people instead of a thing.

I'm with you Zeke

I have no problems with having guns for hunting, sport or self defense

But when gun nuts rant about taking up arms against MY country, about not impacting the gun rights of wife beaters, crazies and fellows.

Just turns my stomach

That ^ fact remains irrelevant because -- whether YOU like it or not -- it remains an historical FACT that one of the underpinnings of our Second Amendment IS exactly that: another (ultimate) check on the risk of a tyrannical government.

You are not required to like the fact that it IS an historical fact. It is even okay if the FACT turns your stomach. It is no less of a FACT on that basis.

Well regulated militias are not gun nuts taking up arms against our country. If our founders wanted to make armed insurrection a Constitutional right, they had every opportunity. Instead, they put in Constitional bans on treason



.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We get it. YOU oppose guns and gun rights.

I oppose OBSESSING over guns and gun rights. , I oppose this continuous monologue that guns are being taken away from law abiding citizens. And I have guns. And NO ONE from the government has come to take my guns in my lifetime. Not even close.

I live in a state that lets you carry in bars and is now trying to keep the police from taking a gun from a person when there has been a domestic violence call but no one is being charged at that time. SO let the gun stay in the house and see what happens is this legislatures purpose. But DO NOT take the fucking gun.

Guns are a tool. If you want to buy and use that tool, have at it. But quit OBSESSING over it.
Stick with obsessing over gays. At least they are people instead of a thing.

I'm with you Zeke

I have no problems with having guns for hunting, sport or self defense

But when gun nuts rant about taking up arms against MY country, about not impacting the gun rights of wife beaters, crazies and fellows.

Just turns my stomach

That ^ fact remains irrelevant because -- whether YOU like it or not -- it remains an historical FACT that one of the underpinnings of our Second Amendment IS exactly that: another (ultimate) check on the risk of a tyrannical government.

You are not required to like the fact that it IS an historical fact. It is even okay if the FACT turns your stomach. It is no less of a FACT on that basis.

Well regulated militias are not gun nuts taking up arms against our country. If our founders wanted to make armed insurrection a Constitutional right, they had every opportunity. Instead, they put in Constitional bans on treason

You are wickedly confused.

Well regulated militias are STATE groups.

That phrase, however, has no controlling influence on the RIGHT that the Second Amendment protects.

The REASON the States INSISTED on the BILL OF RIGHTS (which, you might be interested to discover, includes the 2d Amendment! True story!) is because they would not ratify the Constitution WITHOUT those rights.

So the right to overthrow a tyrannical government is very much one of the reasons for the existence of the 2d Amendment.

No matter how often you deny it, that FACT remains a simple and unavoidable historical truth.

And sure. Treason is never permitted by ANY government. That would be kind of stupid. But we aren't TALKING about treason. In fact, right IN the very document itself, the Founders and Framers noted that laws etc passed "in pursuance thereof" shall be the supreme law of the land. The entire concept of judicial review lets us know that laws passed in DEROGATION of the Constitution are not laws at all. They are VOID ab initio (meaning right from their passage and signing).

If and when the central government starts to behave in a tyrannical (i.e., unConstitutional) manner, their actions are no longer legitimate.

That concept frightens the bejesus out of tyrants.

If you think it's "treason" to oppose a hypothetical tyranny that violates our national charter, then your concept of the meaning of "American" is different than the meaning I have.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334​

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
​

I oppose laws that would violate the 2d Amendment and which would seek to disarm the people.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
― Alan M. Dershowitz

 

[Vandalshandle]

“Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble …”

Interestingly enough, the Constitution does NOT protect citizens from laws against non-peaceful assembly. I guess that Ted Cruz thinks of that as just an oversight in the drafting of the Constitution.

 

[Preacher]

Cruz is finally right on something. Its not included in our founding documents for show...its put there for a reason.

 

[Derideo_Te]

as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

Jefferson never said anything of the sort!

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello

Note: This sentence is often seen paired with the following: "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." That sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution drafts or text as adopted, nor in any other Jefferson writings that we know of.​

Once again the gun fetishists lie about the Founding Fathers in order to justify their obsession about this mythical "tyrannical government" that does not exist.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

Jefferson never said anything of the sort!

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello

Note: This sentence is often seen paired with the following: "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." That sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution drafts or text as adopted, nor in any other Jefferson writings that we know of.​

Once again the gun fetishists lie about the Founding Fathers in order to justify their obsession about this mythical "tyrannical government" that does not exist.

What a massive quivering quibble.

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (Quotation)

This sentence comes from Thomas Jefferson's three drafts of the Virginia Constitution. The text does vary slightly in each draft:

First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."[1]

Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."[2]

Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"[3]

This sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution as adopted.

Note: This sentence is often seen paired with the following: "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." That sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution drafts or text as adopted, nor in any other Jefferson writings that we know of.


Footnotes

1. ↑ PTJ, 1:344.
2. ↑ Ibid., 353. Brackets appear in the original manuscript.
3. ↑ Ibid., 363. Brackets appear in the original manuscript.

So, let's just recap, shall we? Yes. We shall. YOU are feeling all triumphant because the portion of the quote ATTRIBUTED to Jefferson may not have been said by him. The Part? The part about "last resort."

Man. You are a magnificent stud of quoting others' work, when they conclude (and perhaps correctly) that Jefferson's alleged words may not have been his actual words.

But here's the rub. Jefferson DID say the first part (in all three drafts)!

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.

So you libs who wish to disarm the citizenry are at odds with Thomas Jefferson AND the Constitution itself AND the SCOTUS analysis of the legal and historical purpose of the 2d Amendment.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And, while on the topic:

"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 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."

-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

I know. I know. The HORROR of a Supreme Court Justice discussing the ability of the people to resist and triumph over the usurpation and arbitrary powers of "rulers." Libs will denounce such commentary as "treason," no doubt. (Yes. I know. They already have and they do.)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Will Dizzy Te now lecture us on the spurious quotations below? Or, are they perhaps actual quotes from old TJ?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787

& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787

 

[rightwinger]

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
― Alan M. Dershowitz

OJ didn't do it

-Alan M Dershowitz