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.
You can say it all you want but that does NOT make it fact. The MG was the VERY base used for the revolution. And it provides for armed overthrow of government as LEGAL. That was forwarded in the Constitution by INSURING gun rights to the PEOPLE.The Constitution was an outgrowth OF the Magna Carta. IDIOT.Lord help those poor morons if they ever read the Magna Carta and find ARMED insurection is LEGAL.
The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it.
See how that works?
I will say it again:
The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it. The two documents are not identical to each other.
While we are at it IDIOT the Constitution YOU speak of was the SECOND one written POST war. You ever read the FIRST IDIOT? Or do you even know who the FIRST president was?
I see you have a lot to learn.
Armed insurrection is illegal. In fact, we have an insurrection acts, signed into law, on the books:
Insurrection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]
The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
Boards/Forums and Blogs all over the country are becoming war zones. It IS a reflection of the country. Only question that remains is will they push this from the net into the streets?It looks like the board liberals are getting so desperate, that they put up a quote of a conservative saying something true (first line above), and then the liberal lies about it in the same post, with the refutation of the lie right there where he quoted it (third line above).Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny
Hmmmmm, interesting.
A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.
It's never been easy to be a liberal in the U.S.
Now that the media is no longer able to cover up their lies, it's even tougher.
Too bad, so sad.
Honestly, I believe that they are so afraid that that bitch Clinton will get her ass handed to her that they have started doing the propagandist work early. Goebbels would be proud of them.....keep repeating the lie.....
You can say it all you want but that does NOT make it fact. The MG was the VERY base used for the revolution. And it provides for armed overthrow of government as LEGAL. That was forwarded in the Constitution by INSURING gun rights to the PEOPLE.The Constitution was an outgrowth OF the Magna Carta. IDIOT.The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it.
See how that works?
I will say it again:
The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it. The two documents are not identical to each other.
While we are at it IDIOT the Constitution YOU speak of was the SECOND one written POST war. You ever read the FIRST IDIOT? Or do you even know who the FIRST president was?
I see you have a lot to learn.
Armed insurrection is illegal. In fact, we have an insurrection acts, signed into law, on the books:
Insurrection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]
The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
God bless you. Hell, it's a "law" right? That means that we, the people, just HAVE to follow that order, don't we? After all, it's a LAW!! Thank God you never served in the military......
Boards/Forums and Blogs all over the country are becoming war zones. It IS a reflection of the country. Only question that remains is will they push this from the net into the streets?
I for one am ready to see the military take over for a while if this gets any worse. Military protocol IS a lot higher stands of ethics and honesty then we are seeing now.
You can say it all you want but that does NOT make it fact. The MG was the VERY base used for the revolution. And it provides for armed overthrow of government as LEGAL. That was forwarded in the Constitution by INSURING gun rights to the PEOPLE.The Constitution was an outgrowth OF the Magna Carta. IDIOT.
I will say it again:
The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it. The two documents are not identical to each other.
While we are at it IDIOT the Constitution YOU speak of was the SECOND one written POST war. You ever read the FIRST IDIOT? Or do you even know who the FIRST president was?
I see you have a lot to learn.
Armed insurrection is illegal. In fact, we have an insurrection acts, signed into law, on the books:
Insurrection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]
The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
God bless you. Hell, it's a "law" right? That means that we, the people, just HAVE to follow that order, don't we? After all, it's a LAW!! Thank God you never served in the military......
So, you are still not understanding. But that's ok. By the time you get your fat ass out of the armchair to start the revolution, we will be colonizing Mars.
ANY law and I mean ANY law which violates the Constitution is NOT valid. And that one does, it's just words NOT law.You can say it all you want but that does NOT make it fact. The MG was the VERY base used for the revolution. And it provides for armed overthrow of government as LEGAL. That was forwarded in the Constitution by INSURING gun rights to the PEOPLE.The Constitution was an outgrowth OF the Magna Carta. IDIOT.Lord help those poor morons if they ever read the Magna Carta and find ARMED insurection is LEGAL.
The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it.
See how that works?
I will say it again:
The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it. The two documents are not identical to each other.
While we are at it IDIOT the Constitution YOU speak of was the SECOND one written POST war. You ever read the FIRST IDIOT? Or do you even know who the FIRST president was?
I see you have a lot to learn.
Armed insurrection is illegal. In fact, we have an insurrection acts, signed into law, on the books:
Insurrection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]
The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
It actually breaks my heart that these worthless assholes DEFEND tyranny. I swear to God - I never thought I'd see the day.
But, I guess we have to remember that even Hitler was voted into power by the German people. Then one day they woke up. Too late. I can't help but wonder, is that what these pussies long for? Jesus Christ help us....
Read the Declaration of Independence again. Ted Cruz is correct. That's the very reason why we have a 2A.He's absolutely correct. Why do you disagree? There is a reason why Ferguson was a protest that was able to last for several days with only a few clashes with police that involved tear gas and some minor assaults as opposed to resembling the massacre at Tiananmen Square.
In what way is he correct? That armed resurrection against the Government is right, or what?
ANY law and I mean ANY law which violates the Constitution is NOT valid. And that one does, it's just words NOT law.You can say it all you want but that does NOT make it fact. The MG was the VERY base used for the revolution. And it provides for armed overthrow of government as LEGAL. That was forwarded in the Constitution by INSURING gun rights to the PEOPLE.The Constitution was an outgrowth OF the Magna Carta. IDIOT.The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it.
See how that works?
I will say it again:
The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it. The two documents are not identical to each other.
While we are at it IDIOT the Constitution YOU speak of was the SECOND one written POST war. You ever read the FIRST IDIOT? Or do you even know who the FIRST president was?
I see you have a lot to learn.
Armed insurrection is illegal. In fact, we have an insurrection acts, signed into law, on the books:
Insurrection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]
The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
It actually breaks my heart that these worthless assholes DEFEND tyranny. I swear to God - I never thought I'd see the day.
But, I guess we have to remember that even Hitler was voted into power by the German people. Then one day they woke up. Too late. I can't help but wonder, is that what these pussies long for? Jesus Christ help us....
They long for escape from blame. They seek nothing more than to escape responsibility for their own lives. They will suffer any misery, so long as they can blame it on another rather than their own poor choices and bad acts. The assclowns want nothing more than a daddy to make all their decisions for them.
Brilliant moroonie. That is brilliant at getting the maroonies to bite. He knows that the 2nd protects an individual's rightsv for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within a home, not armed insurrection.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
You seen to have forgotten the first half of the amendment, the term "a free state" referred to the various states, not the federal government. No where in the Constitution are the terms "Federal Government" and "State(s) used synonymously.
Boards/Forums and Blogs all over the country are becoming war zones. It IS a reflection of the country. Only question that remains is will they push this from the net into the streets?It looks like the board liberals are getting so desperate, that they put up a quote of a conservative saying something true (first line above), and then the liberal lies about it in the same post, with the refutation of the lie right there where he quoted it (third line above).Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny
Hmmmmm, interesting.
A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.
It's never been easy to be a liberal in the U.S.
Now that the media is no longer able to cover up their lies, it's even tougher.
Too bad, so sad.
Honestly, I believe that they are so afraid that that bitch Clinton will get her ass handed to her that they have started doing the propagandist work early. Goebbels would be proud of them.....keep repeating the lie.....
I for one am ready to see the military take over for a while if this gets any worse. Military protocol IS a lot higher stands of ethics and honesty then we are seeing now.
Read the Declaration of Independence again. Ted Cruz is correct. That's the very reason why we have a 2A.He's absolutely correct. Why do you disagree? There is a reason why Ferguson was a protest that was able to last for several days with only a few clashes with police that involved tear gas and some minor assaults as opposed to resembling the massacre at Tiananmen Square.
In what way is he correct? That armed resurrection against the Government is right, or what?
Bet that title got your attention.
It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.
Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny
It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.
But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.
"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."
This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.
"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."
Hmmmmm, interesting.
A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.
Hmmmmmmm, interesting.
Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.
I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".
Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?
Bet that title got your attention.
It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.
Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny
It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.
But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.
"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."
This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.
"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."
Hmmmmm, interesting.
A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.
Hmmmmmmm, interesting.
Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.
I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".
Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?
You can say it all you want but that does NOT make it fact. The MG was the VERY base used for the revolution. And it provides for armed overthrow of government as LEGAL. That was forwarded in the Constitution by INSURING gun rights to the PEOPLE.I will say it again:
The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it. The two documents are not identical to each other.
While we are at it IDIOT the Constitution YOU speak of was the SECOND one written POST war. You ever read the FIRST IDIOT? Or do you even know who the FIRST president was?
I see you have a lot to learn.
Armed insurrection is illegal. In fact, we have an insurrection acts, signed into law, on the books:
Insurrection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]
The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
God bless you. Hell, it's a "law" right? That means that we, the people, just HAVE to follow that order, don't we? After all, it's a LAW!! Thank God you never served in the military......
So, you are still not understanding. But that's ok. By the time you get your fat ass out of the armchair to start the revolution, we will be colonizing Mars.
Sonny, I hate to break it to you, but it's not ME you have to worry about. I'm 71. You need to worry about the new generation that is coming up. YOU are in for a big surprise. Gee, you're dumb.
Boards/Forums and Blogs all over the country are becoming war zones. It IS a reflection of the country. Only question that remains is will they push this from the net into the streets?It looks like the board liberals are getting so desperate, that they put up a quote of a conservative saying something true (first line above), and then the liberal lies about it in the same post, with the refutation of the lie right there where he quoted it (third line above).Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny
Hmmmmm, interesting.
A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.
It's never been easy to be a liberal in the U.S.
Now that the media is no longer able to cover up their lies, it's even tougher.
Too bad, so sad.
Honestly, I believe that they are so afraid that that bitch Clinton will get her ass handed to her that they have started doing the propagandist work early. Goebbels would be proud of them.....keep repeating the lie.....
I for one am ready to see the military take over for a while if this gets any worse. Military protocol IS a lot higher stands of ethics and honesty then we are seeing now.Read the Declaration of Independence again. Ted Cruz is correct. That's the very reason why we have a 2A.He's absolutely correct. Why do you disagree? There is a reason why Ferguson was a protest that was able to last for several days with only a few clashes with police that involved tear gas and some minor assaults as opposed to resembling the massacre at Tiananmen Square.
In what way is he correct? That armed resurrection against the Government is right, or what?
The Declaration of Independence isn't law.
And Ted Cruz has never been correct about anything.
Yeah, he thinks all of us Hispanics will cut and run from Cruz and vote for that nasty ass old white woman. If WE legal American Mexicans have ANY say it will be to leave the racist democrats behind and vote FOR America and FOR citizens!ANY law and I mean ANY law which violates the Constitution is NOT valid. And that one does, it's just words NOT law.You can say it all you want but that does NOT make it fact. The MG was the VERY base used for the revolution. And it provides for armed overthrow of government as LEGAL. That was forwarded in the Constitution by INSURING gun rights to the PEOPLE.The Constitution was an outgrowth OF the Magna Carta. IDIOT.
I will say it again:
The United States is not under the governance of the Magna Carta. The United States is under the governance of the US Constitution and the laws that have since grown out of it. The two documents are not identical to each other.
While we are at it IDIOT the Constitution YOU speak of was the SECOND one written POST war. You ever read the FIRST IDIOT? Or do you even know who the FIRST president was?
I see you have a lot to learn.
Armed insurrection is illegal. In fact, we have an insurrection acts, signed into law, on the books:
Insurrection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]
The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
Now, don't tell this guy that - after all - as long as a Democrat is in office - he is a good, law-abiding citizen, don't you know. But let a Ted Cruz or a Marco Rubio or whomever get elected and sudden;y, you will see the biggest change in the history of "change". They fool no one. NO ONE.
All this "we are a nation of laws" bullshit will be forgotten in a New York minute. Take it to the bank.
Boards/Forums and Blogs all over the country are becoming war zones. It IS a reflection of the country. Only question that remains is will they push this from the net into the streets?
I for one am ready to see the military take over for a while if this gets any worse. Military protocol IS a lot higher stands of ethics and honesty then we are seeing now.
Boards/Forums and Blogs all over the country are becoming war zones. It IS a reflection of the country. Only question that remains is will they push this from the net into the streets?It looks like the board liberals are getting so desperate, that they put up a quote of a conservative saying something true (first line above), and then the liberal lies about it in the same post, with the refutation of the lie right there where he quoted it (third line above).Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny
Hmmmmm, interesting.
A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.
It's never been easy to be a liberal in the U.S.
Now that the media is no longer able to cover up their lies, it's even tougher.
Too bad, so sad.
Honestly, I believe that they are so afraid that that bitch Clinton will get her ass handed to her that they have started doing the propagandist work early. Goebbels would be proud of them.....keep repeating the lie.....
I for one am ready to see the military take over for a while if this gets any worse. Military protocol IS a lot higher stands of ethics and honesty then we are seeing now.
Bet that title got your attention.
It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.
Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny
It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.
But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.
"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."
This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.
"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."
Hmmmmm, interesting.
A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.
Hmmmmmmm, interesting.
Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.
I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".
Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?
That picture of Cruz is so funny. Those hunting clothes are right out of the store. I hope someone remembered to take the tags off them.
