Skip to comments.Sharron Angle floated possibility of armed insurrection (Believes in 2nd Amendment - the horrors!)
Posted on 06/15/2010 2:40:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Here's another one that could be tough for Sharron Angle to explain away: In an interview in January, Angle appeared to float the possibility of armed insurrection if "this Congress keeps going the way it is."
I'm not kidding. In an interview she gave to a right-wing talk show host, Angle approvingly quoted Thomas Jefferson saying it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years -- and said that if Congress keeps it up, people may find themselves resorting to "Second Amendment remedies."
What's more, the talk show host she spoke to tells me he doesn't have any doubt that she was floating the possibility of armed insurrection as a valid response if Congress continues along its current course.
Asked by the host, Lars Larson of Portland, Oregon, where she stands on Second Amendment issues, Angle replied:
"You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years."
"I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
Larson says Angle was floating the possibility of armed insurrection if Congress keeps it up under Reid et al.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
I just sent her $100 that I couldn't afford to part with.
I’m with her....
Angle approvingly quoted Thomas Jefferson
Ok, I can understand quoting Thomas Jefferson, but to do so "approvingly?" OH THE HUGE MANATEE!!!
OMG!! She quoted Thomas Jefferson!! What will she do next?
Wapo, by taking Harry Reid out, Angle is referring to an electoral outcome, not an exercise of 2d Amendment rights.
While I agree with her, this is a killer problem that could really hurt her.
As a brother-in-arms said in those bad, bleak Carter years, “Where’s Lee Harvey Oswald now that we really need him?”
If this country has reached the point where these statements make her unelectable, then perhaps she is right about the 2nd amendment remedies.
Where do we send the money?
What a dumb comment.
Sounds like a plausible solution, but tricky!
And yet the WaPo never had a problem with Anita Dunn praising mass murderer Mao (or Obummer and his terrorist pal Billy Ayers).
Yeah. Whatever gave these people the idea that they have the right to alter or abolish the government just because they think that it is destructive to their liberty?
I sent her $50 and I agree with her. if Congress keeps going the way it is going what is the ultimate move? That final move to dictatorship is not something we Americans will accept if ever tried. The Dems seem convinced they can do anything they please.
Second, if you think advocating armed insurrection is a good political platform, well then we'll just have to disagree. It sounds like a loser.
Anyone who has ever pledged to uphold the constitution has implicitly agreed to the possibility of armed insurection should the government ever abridge the rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Everytime she repeats that she gets a new wave of donations.
Hey Greg? Barack Obama is close friends with a terrorist, went to a bigot reverend for 20 years, and believes inwealth redistribution. I`m not kidding.
I’m looking for candidates that can quote the founders without stuttering, stammering, or embarrassment.
When you have presidents and high officials taking office for the expressed purpose of overthrowing the constitution, you have to expect people to push back. As long as the ballot box still works, thats the end of it. When the ballots fail to remedy the situation, though, she is right. That is precisely what the second ammendment is for. That is what the founders themselves said it was for.
How about a constitutional republic, like we used to have?
That’s what we have now.
We can’t even be sure that our elections are clean at the moment. How much ballot stuffing is going on by groups like ACORN?
She is quoting Thomas Jefferson? yeah? what’s the problem?
This is the same paper that lovingly recounts memories of the scumbag Ayers/Dohrn antics in the 60s, along with the Black Panther scumbags who were out to destroy America, and who seek to “understand” savage Muslims as they try to kill us and take over our nation.
I like this woman Angle-maybe there’s hope yet for us.....
It worked for the Founders.
It would be nice to have ONE person in government who actually respects the citizenry for a change.
Are you kidding? Ever heard of Shays Rebellion? The founders strung up a couple of those guys, and locked up the rest. How about the Whiskey Rebellion? Washington and Hamilton personally led the troops into town to put that one down.
"weather underground" "kill 25 million" get almost 3,000 hits on google Web
but "weather underground" "kill 25 million" get zero hits when the search is limited to site:www.washingtonpost.com
So it suggests that the employees of the Post have no problem with Obama close associates like Bill Ayers and others of the Mascratii (1960s Marxist-Alinsky street/campus rabble and their ideological issue) speculating about their druthers to crush citizens like Sharron Angle and establish a "people's democracy" -- or some such "progressive" society.
.. and guess what? The Mascratii are arguably now the Establishment.
ahhhhhh, the Reid assault beings via proxies.....so predictable.
Yeah, those Articles of Anarchy were just a great system of government.
It’s a refreshing change of pace. I hope she gets voted in.
You missed the point. This country was founded by an ‘armed insurrection’.
No it wasn't. It was formed by revolution, defended in war. Insurrection is merely a revolt against the existing government, and all governments, includihg those created by our founders, put them down. A revolution is a fundamental change in the FORM of government.
The founders' justification for revolution, set out in the Declaration was two-fold. It wasn't merely the long train of abuses. It was also the FORM of government they lived under. They argued that a new FORM was necessary to correct the abuses.
Personally, I believe we need a new FORM of government. However, under our system, we have means of achieving that end which have yet to be attempted, which must be attempted before revolution would be justified.
And even if or when those means are exhausted, what new FORM is being proposed? Using violence to correct maladministration is simply anarchy, or a coup. It would be a total negation of democratic principles. If we want to be governed by junta, that's the way to go. If we seek ordered liberty, it's a big mistake.
All semantics. I doubt any level of tyranny would cause you to pick-up arms.
So why did Washington personally march troops into PA to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, with Hamilton at his side?
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 to 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 shown 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.
So, are you suggesting the Constitution be abolished? Clearly, the declaration speaks of changing the form of government. You don't appeal to arms because you don't like the outcome of an election, or because you don't care for a particular ruling of the court. If you do, you're an insurrectionist.
As for what I'd be willing to do, clearly, now is not the time for arms. The people don't want it, and there is no groundwork laid to replace our faulty system with a better one. I advocate all the time for devising such a system. I believe our FORM of government should be thrown off. Do you?
What structure would you give that system?
Your self portrait says so much about you.
Is the Constitution to be regarded as the Supreme Law of the Land? If so, many actions undertaken by government personnel are illegitimate, and it is the right and duty of citizens to recognize them as such.
To be sure, the ways in which citizens act upon such recognition will generally be severely limited by the fact that government personnel who have been acting illegitimately for many years would have little qualm about undertaking further illegitimate action to squash any resistance, aided by the fact that many people credit the government with far more legitimacy than it deserves.
If a jury of twelve ordinary people, informed of all the facts surrounding a search, would find that the way in which the police conducted it is "unreasonable", it's unreasonable and thus illegitimate. If a jury, informed of the facts of the case, would find that a particular punishment would be "cruel and unusual" for the particular crime committed (i.e. the particular actions of the accused, in the context of the surrounding circumstances), it's cruel and unusual and thus illegitimate.
Unfortunately, the field of "Constitutional law" has devolved into an effort to find new ways to pretend the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. Judges offer up a set of procedures police can follow so that they're unlikely to infringe suspect's rights, and then declare that if the procedures are followed the suspect's rights should be deemed to have been honored, even if the cops deliberately acted so as to deliberately infringe the suspect's rights while operating within the letter of the procedure. In fact, the question needs to be not whether some particular procedures were followed, but whether the suspect's rights were infringed.
I have no idea how we'll get back from where we are to legitimate Constitutional government, but one should at least recognize illegitimate government actions for what they are.
Article 3 of the Constitution is to blame for all your complaints. The Constitution created this mess.
They [the courts] will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controlled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controllable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.
The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.
Or as the song says, "it's even worse than it appears."
But it's alright.
They [the courts] will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted. One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only, so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the meantime all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion...
...Had the construction of the constitution been more with the legislature, they would have explained it at their peril. If they exceed[ed] their powers, or sought to find in the spirit of the constitution, more than was expressed in the letter, the people from whom they derived their power could remove them, . . .
Indeed, I can see no other remedy that the people can have against their rulers for encroachments of this nature. A constitution is a compact of a people with their rulers; if the rulers break the compact, the people have a right and ought to remove them and do themselves justice. But in order to enable them to do this with the greater facility, those whom the people choose at stated periods should have the power in the last resort to determine the sense of the compact. If they determine contrary to the understanding of the people, an appeal will lie to the people at the period when the rulers are to be elected, and they will have it in their power to remedy the evil. But when this power is lodged in the hands of men independent of the people, and of their representatives, and who are not constitutionally accountable for their opinions, no way is left to control them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm.
Judge Alex Kozinski