HeeHeeHee
Sorry, I should have understood the obvious!!
Posted on 01/14/2013 4:08:51 PM PST by marktwain
The renewed debate over gun rights that has followed the massacre of elementary schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., has included scrutiny over why gun advocates believe they need a right to bear arms. Among the reasons: Many advocates believe that individual gun ownership helps preserve American liberty, making government fearful of trampling on rights of its citizens. If government goes too far, the argument goes, Americans have the right to revolt by force.
Is that argument correct? Or does it belong to fringe gun enthusiasts?
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldandnews.com ...
Anything but firearms. No need to provide “ammunition” to the tyrants immediately.
Did anyone post a comment at the site? I cannot read them with this machine.
It looks like you can, Mark..
Absent that compliance........
IMHO
Folks what are we doing to mobilize for demonstrations? We need to get a million people in D.C. each carrying a wooden gun painted bright orange and march through the streets to show our solidarity. How does that Idea sound?
The 2 Amendment is the tool. The right is in The Declaration of Independence “That when ever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter it or abolish it, and institute new Government’’.
Only direct taxes need to be uniform.
The Constitutional union is more perfect, compared to the perpetual union of the A of C.
Pretense to secession is a controvery: To be resolved by the supreme court.
The whiskey law was legal, passed by congress, signed by president. It was not tyrannical to enforce the law in the sense that the president did not elect himself, and did not pass the law himself, nor did he benefit from the law more than anyone else.
Was it a good law? Probably not, but that is not a necessary because every law is bad to someone.
This is not the goverment of free people,it is the puppet goverment of the new world order.Those of us who misses the America the free we grew up in,have no voice.We have no news,all we hear is lies from a bunch of paid liars.!If you belive either party you as close to being braindead as a human can get.
A*hole author - Children were led into the Nazi gas chambers along with everyone else. I hope you don’t find yourself following others being led take a cleansing shower someday and reflect back on your idiocy!
“Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God”,Thomas Jefferson
I figured they were included under "TRAITORS" and didn't rate specific mention.
HeeHeeHee
Sorry, I should have understood the obvious!!
HeeHeeHee
Sorry, I should have understood the obvious!!
HT, I can’t find the definition of that, what language?
Putting down insurrection is a power of the government, but also a right of people not in insurrection: to expect the government to enforce the law.
Keeping in mind that the rebellion in 1860-61 began before Lincoln took office, so there is nothing that Lincoln did in office that could possibly be used to justify the rebellion that actually took place.
The radical monetary policies pursued in 1787 by Rhode Island are interesting as a bad example, rather like California today. There was, apparently some consideration given to cutting RI up as an essential part of the Union per the A or C, but not protected by the provisions of the Constitution.
As for today, sadly, the American people put that turtle on the fence. My efforts currently focus on how to reduce the damage.
Yamamoto was a smart guy: Harvard Graduate.
No, direct taxes need be apportioned among the states, except if they are income taxes according to the 16th amendment. Indirect taxes need be uniform. The Constitution verbatimly says “Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
That “more perfect” argument is among the weakest I’ve ever read. You are grasping at straws. Who’s to say a more perfect union wouldn’t be one which isn’t “perpetual”?
Since when does SCOTIS solve all controversies? Oh, right, never.
The whiskey law was not legal, for it failed the Constitution’s uniformity requirement.
When I said “Washington” I wasn’t thinking of the man himself, really, but the central government. It works, anyway, since he marched in the field against his own people for the sake of precious revenue.
The rebellion began before Lincoln? Secession did, but Lincoln oddly didn’t do anything about it. It wasn’t until after Sumter that he blockaded ports and called for 75,000 troops. And it was that, not Lincoln’s election, which prompted the last 4 states to join the earlier 7 in the Confederacy.
The armed phase of the insurrection began when US forces were forced to surrender their posts to rebels.
Sadly, many of the US officers turned their coats after that.
Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens didn’t surrender before Lincoln took office. Ft. Pickens remained under US Government control throughout.
Ft. Sumter was not on South Carolina soil, being built by the US government on a shoal, below the waterline.
That would be the Constitution that requires controversies between various states, between states and the federal government to be resolved with the Supreme court as original jurisdiction.
You know, the constitution to which the people and the states as the agent of the people agreed? That constitution!
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.
