Posted on 04/17/2015 8:02:22 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The 2nd does facilitate rebellion possibilities. It may not “protect” a right to rebellion, whatever that means, but it should keep politicians just a teensy bit nervous.
Grey, dumb-ox Green.
A "free state" is in one sense an independent political unit.In another sense it is a status of liberty. I think the 2nd carries both meanings.
The People’s Army in China, as well as the Venezuelan National Bolivarian Militia. That sort of thing.
Happened to me yesterday when I Posted Comments on another Lefty Blog that was liked from here.
It appears factual information is a NO NO when Liberals run the show.
This would leave it to the listener to understand what happened in 1775;
that our Founders were not fighting off foreign invaders but rather their own government,
that it is not necessary to have the support of a majority of the people in order to act,
that it is better to die free than live as a slave,
and that nobody ever won a war by dying for his country but he won it by making some other poor bastard die for his.
When the southern states seceded, it was each state's, indeed each city's militias, that seized weapons in local armories and forts.
The headline is correct. The Second Amendment does NOT protect a right to rebellion.
The right to rebellion is protected by the laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God.
The Second Amendment protects your right to possess some of the necessary tools.
You read any works or quotes by the Founders about the 2nd amendment, and you know that’s exactly what it’s for.
Send me the links; I might post them wherever I can...FR page...my website...social media properties, &c.
i was over there and posted...
but before you can get far, they censor you and bloc you
meanwhile, the left there gets to say wacko stuff
i have no idea why they blocked me as all i did was bring up the fact that the warsaw ghetto uprising anniversary is tomorrow, and the hitlerians blocked me...
The writer’s argument is based on the notion that the Framers believed in an armed citizenry in order to repel an invasion by France, and not in gaining independence from George III.
Right. That makes sense. (/sarc)
This writer obviously never read a thing our Founding Fathers wrote.
The ignorance perpetuated by our public schools is scary for our future.
I suppose the EPA is now off limits too?
What a country!
In know, I know. Drat!
The writer and his ilk certainly do not care about what the Founders intended. Of course such this piece mill destruction of the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has been going on for years, especially since the WWI days of Wilson. the US had FDR. It went through the Carter years. It carried on through the Clinton years and in my hindsight opinion even through the Bush years. However. the crowning achievement for ‘change’ has been the Obama years. Getting back to the writer, he obviously is in the thinking/thought mode that all these changes are in the mode of the Founder’s intentions. Apparently, his poly sci indoctrination is firmly rooted.
Lighten up and relax your sphincter muscle a little. It's Friday.
The British weren't "invaders." Idiot.
Thank you so much for that link. What a wonderful resource! I’m saving all the chapters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.