Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It isn't..In fact the Constitution mentions armed insurrection. As does the US CodeThe "law" cannot say any such thing since Cruz only pointed out that the creation of the Second Amendment WAS historically for a particular set of purposes. He was and still is entirely right.
Only, as I just pointed out to you very clearly, one and only one purpose is listed in the 2nd amendment for the bearing of arms, and armed insurrection against the Government is NOT the reason listed.
What part of the word "logic" do you not understand?
No,. You didn't point anything out clearly. You offered a facile and erroneous analysis.
You were wrong and you still are.
The PURPOSES buttressing the 2d Amendment were discussed by the various States at the time of the RATIFICATIONs. Your refusal of recognition of historical fact doesn't change history. It just makes you studiously blind to it.
The CONSTITUTION would not have been ratified and we would not BE the United States of America if it were not for the promise of the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights (including the 2d amendment) was INSISTED upon for a whole lot of reasons INCLUDING the desire to place another CHECK on the feared prospect of an overly powerful central government.
The PURPOSES for the 2d Amendment do not have to be listed
for them to exist. Are the Purposes for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association and freedom of religion all explicitly listed? Do you imagine they must be or they cease to exist?
Snap the fuck out of it.
So, now you have gone from not being about to actually quote anything from the Constitution or Federal Law to saying that OPINIONS of individuals from various states "buttress"(ed) the purposes of the 2nd Amendment.
I ask for one final time:
Where EXACTLY in the US CONSTITUTION or in ANY FEDERAL LAW is armed insurrection against the US Government allowed or encouraged? And why is this NOT listed as a reason for the 2nd Amendment.
I give you one FINAL chance to actually prove your point, instead of running and hiding behind opinions of someone so and so to "buttress" the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
LAW and "opinion" are NOT the same thing.
10 U.S. Code 332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority LII Legal Information Institute
This should sum it up for you....
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The US Constitution is a limiting document. Limiting the government. Not the people.
Meaning....WE give permission to the government to do things. We do not permit the government to steamroll us with the use of unreasonable force.
The political left however, in its incredible hypocrisy, resists use of the military for purposes of national security on foreign soil, but will ascend to the use of force on US Citizens. Especially is the force is used to insure compliance with anything that fits THEIR agenda.
No you are wrong and quite probably dishonest. At a minimum you are a willing tool of the disinformation to which you have been subjected by the likes of Soros et al.
Seems to me you are afrad of the truth. I can read an articlw created by the KKK and it wll sound good! Teapers are so gullible.
No you can't. And if it sounds good, it only sounds good to complete filthy asshole motherfuckers such as you.Gullible teapers and their hate mission. So pathetic. I wonder if you are brainwashed or part of the problem...lyng about the motives of the tea party to recruit more hooded members.
YOU are scary stupid or entirely dishonest. Either way, you are just a troll and of no value here.You are just a lemming incapable of thinking for himself. Sheesh...just look at all of the hate spewed by your teaper ilk on this forum. Oh, forgot...you are a victim...all of the teaper hate speech is just a mass conspracy. The teapers spewing hate are just liberals pretending to be teapers.
Pathetic. People like yourself are too dumb to have an intelligent conversation with...you are so full of hate, you can't think rationally.
It isn't..In fact the Constitution mentions armed insurrection. As does the US CodeThe "law" cannot say any such thing since Cruz only pointed out that the creation of the Second Amendment WAS historically for a particular set of purposes. He was and still is entirely right.
Only, as I just pointed out to you very clearly, one and only one purpose is listed in the 2nd amendment for the bearing of arms, and armed insurrection against the Government is NOT the reason listed.
What part of the word "logic" do you not understand?
No,. You didn't point anything out clearly. You offered a facile and erroneous analysis.
You were wrong and you still are.
The PURPOSES buttressing the 2d Amendment were discussed by the various States at the time of the RATIFICATIONs. Your refusal of recognition of historical fact doesn't change history. It just makes you studiously blind to it.
The CONSTITUTION would not have been ratified and we would not BE the United States of America if it were not for the promise of the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights (including the 2d amendment) was INSISTED upon for a whole lot of reasons INCLUDING the desire to place another CHECK on the feared prospect of an overly powerful central government.
The PURPOSES for the 2d Amendment do not have to be listed
for them to exist. Are the Purposes for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association and freedom of religion all explicitly listed? Do you imagine they must be or they cease to exist?
Snap the fuck out of it.
So, now you have gone from not being about to actually quote anything from the Constitution or Federal Law to saying that OPINIONS of individuals from various states "buttress"(ed) the purposes of the 2nd Amendment.
I ask for one final time:
Where EXACTLY in the US CONSTITUTION or in ANY FEDERAL LAW is armed insurrection against the US Government allowed or encouraged? And why is this NOT listed as a reason for the 2nd Amendment.
I give you one FINAL chance to actually prove your point, instead of running and hiding behind opinions of someone so and so to "buttress" the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
LAW and "opinion" are NOT the same thing.
10 U.S. Code 332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority LII Legal Information Institute
This should sum it up for you....
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The US Constitution is a limiting document. Limiting the government. Not the people.
Meaning....WE give permission to the government to do things. We do not permit the government to steamroll us with the use of unreasonable force.
The political left however, in its incredible hypocrisy, resists use of the military for purposes of national security on foreign soil, but will ascend to the use of force on US Citizens. Especially is the force is used to insure compliance with anything that fits THEIR agenda.
Indeed. Neither of the two links you provide empower the people to raise arms against the US Government.
In fact, 332 is there to make sure that the militia can be used to put down such an armed insurrection.
Got anymore unicorns for me, while you are at it?
You are right...regretfully, teapers seem to think the election of a President of a Darker Hue justifies insurrection. Teapers have destroyed America and the foundation in which we ere bult. They rely on violence and threats as opposed to democracy and our republic.The "law" cannot say any such thing since Cruz only pointed out that the creation of the Second Amendment WAS historically for a particular set of purposes. He was and still is entirely right.
Only, as I just pointed out to you very clearly, one and only one purpose is listed in the 2nd amendment for the bearing of arms, and armed insurrection against the Government is NOT the reason listed.
What part of the word "logic" do you not understand?
No,. You didn't point anything out clearly. You offered a facile and erroneous analysis.
You were wrong and you still are.
The PURPOSES buttressing the 2d Amendment were discussed by the various States at the time of the RATIFICATIONs. Your refusal of recognition of historical fact doesn't change history. It just makes you studiously blind to it.
The CONSTITUTION would not have been ratified and we would not BE the United States of America if it were not for the promise of the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights (including the 2d amendment) was INSISTED upon for a whole lot of reasons INCLUDING the desire to place another CHECK on the feared prospect of an overly powerful central government.
The PURPOSES for the 2d Amendment do not have to be listed
for them to exist. Are the Purposes for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association and freedom of religion all explicitly listed? Do you imagine they must be or they cease to exist?
Snap the fuck out of it.
So, now you have gone from not being about to actually quote anything from the Constitution or Federal Law to saying that OPINIONS of individuals from various states "buttress"(ed) the purposes of the 2nd Amendment.
I ask for one final time:
Where EXACTLY in the US CONSTITUTION or in ANY FEDERAL LAW is armed insurrection against the US Government allowed or encouraged? And why is this NOT listed as a reason for the 2nd Amendment.
I give you one FINAL chance to actually prove your point, instead of running and hiding behind opinions of someone so and so to "buttress" the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
LAW and "opinion" are NOT the same thing.
I don't know how to dumb things down to such a low level that you might have a chance of finally getting it.
I will TELL you yet AGAIN. The purposes for the 2d Amendment were known to the folks who authored it and to those who sought the ratification of the Bill of Rights and to those who DEMANDED the Bill of Rights. And I tell you YET again that it makes NOT ONE TINY BIT OF DIFFERENCE no matter how many times you ask your meaningless and utterly pointless questions whether the PURPOSES are spelled out IN the Constitution.
For although you love to duck the questions you can't handle, the fact remains that you are UNABLE to show that the purpose needs to be spelled out in an Amendment in order for that purpose to exist.
and now, I will AGAIN answer you that no law would 'allow' anybody to engage in an insurrection. In fact, quite to the contrary, the laws OF COURSE forbid it and empower the Government to quell them.
Now you should try to answer me. So what? Would anybody expect things to be otherwise? Here's the question:
If -- and to the extent that -- the Federal Government chose to deliberately transgress the bounds of the Constitutionally LIMITED authority and powers it has, and moved illegally to take away (by force, perhaps) the rights and property or lives of the people or any subset of the people, are you suggesting that the PEOPLE would be obligated to behave like fucking sheep and never lift a finger to stop it?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...
I don't know how to dumb things down to such a low level that you might have a chance of finally getting it.
I will TELL you yet AGAIN. The purposes for the 2d Amendment were known to the folks who authored it and to those who sought the ratification of the Bill of Rights and to those who DEMANDED the Bill of Rights. And I tell you YET again that it makes NOT ONE TINY BIT OF DIFFERENCE no matter how many times you ask your meaningless and utterly pointless questions whether the PURPOSES are spelled out IN the Constitution.
For although you love to duck the questions you can't handle, the fact remains that you are UNABLE to show that the purpose needs to be spelled out in an Amendment in order for that purpose to exist.
and now, I will AGAIN answer you that no law would 'allow' anybody to engage in an insurrection. In fact, quite to the contrary, the laws OF COURSE forbid it and empower the Government to quell them.
Now you should try to answer me. So what? Would anybody expect things to be otherwise? Here's the question:
If -- and to the extent that -- the Federal Government chose to deliberately transgress the bounds of the Constitutionally LIMITED authority and powers it has, and moved illegally to take away (by force, perhaps) the rights and property or lives of the people or any subset of the people, are you suggesting that the PEOPLE would be obligated to behave like fucking sheep and never lift a finger to stop it?
It isn't..In fact the Constitution mentions armed insurrection. As does the US CodeOnly, as I just pointed out to you very clearly, one and only one purpose is listed in the 2nd amendment for the bearing of arms, and armed insurrection against the Government is NOT the reason listed.
What part of the word "logic" do you not understand?
No,. You didn't point anything out clearly. You offered a facile and erroneous analysis.
You were wrong and you still are.
The PURPOSES buttressing the 2d Amendment were discussed by the various States at the time of the RATIFICATIONs. Your refusal of recognition of historical fact doesn't change history. It just makes you studiously blind to it.
The CONSTITUTION would not have been ratified and we would not BE the United States of America if it were not for the promise of the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights (including the 2d amendment) was INSISTED upon for a whole lot of reasons INCLUDING the desire to place another CHECK on the feared prospect of an overly powerful central government.
The PURPOSES for the 2d Amendment do not have to be listed
for them to exist. Are the Purposes for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association and freedom of religion all explicitly listed? Do you imagine they must be or they cease to exist?
Snap the fuck out of it.
So, now you have gone from not being about to actually quote anything from the Constitution or Federal Law to saying that OPINIONS of individuals from various states "buttress"(ed) the purposes of the 2nd Amendment.
I ask for one final time:
Where EXACTLY in the US CONSTITUTION or in ANY FEDERAL LAW is armed insurrection against the US Government allowed or encouraged? And why is this NOT listed as a reason for the 2nd Amendment.
I give you one FINAL chance to actually prove your point, instead of running and hiding behind opinions of someone so and so to "buttress" the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
LAW and "opinion" are NOT the same thing.
10 U.S. Code 332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority LII Legal Information Institute
This should sum it up for you....
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The US Constitution is a limiting document. Limiting the government. Not the people.
Meaning....WE give permission to the government to do things. We do not permit the government to steamroll us with the use of unreasonable force.
The political left however, in its incredible hypocrisy, resists use of the military for purposes of national security on foreign soil, but will ascend to the use of force on US Citizens. Especially is the force is used to insure compliance with anything that fits THEIR agenda.
Indeed. Neither of the two links you provide empower the people to raise arms against the US Government.
In fact, 332 is there to make sure that the militia can be used to put down such an armed insurrection.
Got anymore unicorns for me, while you are at it?
Wow. StatiskalMange has figured out that the government does not pass laws authorizing insurrection.
You are right...regretfully, teapers seem to think the election of a President of a Darker Hue justifies insurrection
I love it when idiot teapers announce they are putting me on ignore. I didn't mean to disrupt your cross burning.Seems to me you are afrad of the truth. I can read an articlw created by the KKK and it wll sound good! Teapers are so gullible.
No you can't. And if it sounds good, it only sounds good to complete filthy asshole motherfuckers such as you.
YOU are scary stupid or entirely dishonest. Either way, you are just a troll and of no value here.
Pathetic. People like yourself are too dumb to have an intelligent conversation with...you are so full of hate, you can't think rationally.
You have not the hint of emerging brain stem, much less a functioning brain, you worthless troll.
It is a very very small and exclusive list. But you have made it.
Since you lack ANY ability to argue rationally or persuasively or honestly, I consign you to the Ignore Zone. It's like the Phantom Zone but for you much duller folks.
Wow...where do you gert that from, stupid? Just making shit up, I see. Typical racist teaper.You are right...regretfully, teapers seem to think the election of a President of a Darker Hue justifies insurrection
No darkie can make it on their own without handouts, ay Archie Bunker?
Knuckle drag much?
I don't know how to dumb things down to such a low level that you might have a chance of finally getting it.
I will TELL you yet AGAIN. The purposes for the 2d Amendment were known to the folks who authored it and to those who sought the ratification of the Bill of Rights and to those who DEMANDED the Bill of Rights. And I tell you YET again that it makes NOT ONE TINY BIT OF DIFFERENCE no matter how many times you ask your meaningless and utterly pointless questions whether the PURPOSES are spelled out IN the Constitution.
For although you love to duck the questions you can't handle, the fact remains that you are UNABLE to show that the purpose needs to be spelled out in an Amendment in order for that purpose to exist.
and now, I will AGAIN answer you that no law would 'allow' anybody to engage in an insurrection. In fact, quite to the contrary, the laws OF COURSE forbid it and empower the Government to quell them.
Now you should try to answer me. So what? Would anybody expect things to be otherwise? Here's the question:
If -- and to the extent that -- the Federal Government chose to deliberately transgress the bounds of the Constitutionally LIMITED authority and powers it has, and moved illegally to take away (by force, perhaps) the rights and property or lives of the people or any subset of the people, are you suggesting that the PEOPLE would be obligated to behave like fucking sheep and never lift a finger to stop it?
And yet, not one of those mysterious purposes made their way into the Constitution, a document known for it's exactitude in clearly delineating what is and what isn't.
You are talking about individuals' OPINIONS, not that which actually is engraved into the law. If this was such a hot point, then why was it not included in the Constitution, eh?
Once again, you utterly fail to provide evidence for this specific purpose for the 2nd Amendment, namely, to allow people to mount an armed insurrection against the Government.
But there IS a clause in the US Constitution that CLEARLY states that the US Government will put down armed insurrection.
You do understand that, right?
Amazing: it's a law that the 2nd Amendment crowd hangs on to so tightly, cannot provide even a smidge of evidence in this case.
Ted Cruz is COMPLETELY WRONG about this point. He is issuing an opinion, one that is not anchored in the actual document upon which our Republican is based.
Your ignorance about this is nothing less than astounding.
Are all gun owners such drama queens?I don't get why the militia types think they could take on the US military and win.
And yes, the military would fire on US citizens. They swear an oath to do exactly that.
Yep can see it now, goober t bodine shootin' off his 12 gauge fighin' off the gob'ment
these so called patriots crack me up ... 4 F18's, one fly by the "camp in the woods" and the entire redneck militia becomes possums up in the trees ..
Just what the British said about their expertise on battlefield tactics, but we didn't follow their program.
Also, the military isn't a hostile force to the American people, for a just cause they will be split as well.
Then again victim mentatlity is your gig
The British won most of the battles and took territory at will
Until the French entered the war
Drunken gun nuts would be no match for a modern military
I like how you keep saying you love America, obviously that love is based on your hand in our pockets.
And yes, of course, gun owners are drunken gun nuts, your city liberal snobbery and bigotry is a great argument. Gun owners in this country would be actually a pretty formidable force, but you keep telling your self that, dependency boy. We are also heavily connected to the military both with veterans and families of veterans
Talk to me when you learn about TRUE conservatism.
Gotcha, "TRUE" conservatives are authoritarian leftist dependency whores. Words aren't your thing, are they Karl?
Yes, small government is hate. I would give you my money, but I hate you. The standard you set for yourself is quite lofty, isn't it?
Wow...where do you gert that from, stupid? Just making shit up, I see. Typical racist teaper.You are right...regretfully, teapers seem to think the election of a President of a Darker Hue justifies insurrection
No darkie can make it on their own without handouts, ay Archie Bunker?
Knuckle drag much?
Are all gun owners such drama queens?
You come on here day after day about how bad you have it as gun owners continue to slaughter other Americans
Again, you racist teaper piece of shit...you are assigning an argument I have never made. Typcal of a teaper. Racist asswipes are nothing but liars who are only able to make an argument by making shit up. pathetic pussies, you and your ilk are.Wow...where do you gert that from, stupid? Just making shit up, I see. Typical racist teaper.You are right...regretfully, teapers seem to think the election of a President of a Darker Hue justifies insurrection
No darkie can make it on their own without handouts, ay Archie Bunker?
Knuckle drag much?
You think negroes can't do it like white people, they aren't smart enough, Archie Bunker, so government has to take care of them or it's racist. Cutting government spending? That's racist, it affects blacks the most. You are very clear in your view. A without handouts a bunch of darkies are just going to die
Are all gun owners such drama queens?
You're the drama queen, what are you talking about?
rightwinger: Drunken gun nuts would be no match for a modern military
You come on here day after day about how bad you have it as gun owners continue to slaughter other Americans
So what's your plan, big guy?
Actually, his ignorance is consistent with that of most others on the right – quite expected and unsurprising.I don't know how to dumb things down to such a low level that you might have a chance of finally getting it.
I will TELL you yet AGAIN. The purposes for the 2d Amendment were known to the folks who authored it and to those who sought the ratification of the Bill of Rights and to those who DEMANDED the Bill of Rights. And I tell you YET again that it makes NOT ONE TINY BIT OF DIFFERENCE no matter how many times you ask your meaningless and utterly pointless questions whether the PURPOSES are spelled out IN the Constitution.
For although you love to duck the questions you can't handle, the fact remains that you are UNABLE to show that the purpose needs to be spelled out in an Amendment in order for that purpose to exist.
and now, I will AGAIN answer you that no law would 'allow' anybody to engage in an insurrection. In fact, quite to the contrary, the laws OF COURSE forbid it and empower the Government to quell them.
Now you should try to answer me. So what? Would anybody expect things to be otherwise? Here's the question:
If -- and to the extent that -- the Federal Government chose to deliberately transgress the bounds of the Constitutionally LIMITED authority and powers it has, and moved illegally to take away (by force, perhaps) the rights and property or lives of the people or any subset of the people, are you suggesting that the PEOPLE would be obligated to behave like fucking sheep and never lift a finger to stop it?
And yet, not one of those mysterious purposes made their way into the Constitution, a document known for it's exactitude in clearly delineating what is and what isn't.
You are talking about individuals' OPINIONS, not that which actually is engraved into the law. If this was such a hot point, then why was it not included in the Constitution, eh?
Once again, you utterly fail to provide evidence for this specific purpose for the 2nd Amendment, namely, to allow people to mount an armed insurrection against the Government.
But there IS a clause in the US Constitution that CLEARLY states that the US Government will put down armed insurrection.
You do understand that, right?
Amazing: it's a law that the 2nd Amendment crowd hangs on to so tightly, however, cannot provide even a smidge of evidence in this case.
Ted Cruz is COMPLETELY WRONG about this point. He is issuing an opinion, one that is not anchored in the actual document upon which our Republic is based.
Your ignorance about this is nothing less than astounding.
Small government is a myth in trying to claim it can support an economic ...
and military superpower
you are assigning an argument I have never made. Typcal of a teaper
you are so clueless, it's hysterical
