Skip to comments.Does 2nd Amendment give right to armed revolt?
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 ...
“methods other than gunfire”
We could try petitions ... there are any number of petitions that have been and are being filed with the White House, but they just laugh them off.
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
it allows for revolt against a tyrannical government. it doesn’t allow for rebellion against a lawful government.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution do not “give” any rights.
They PREVENT the government at Washington from INTERFERING with per-existing rights, granted by the Creator.
It has not happened yet. We are still in the clarifying stage.
Dear RONNIE RAYYY GUNZZZ!
(I think I remember that tune) Exactamundo my friend. But my problem is this: Pubbies have no ballz.
Boner, the NO NUTZ PUTZ, would cry a river if some young blood suggested impeaching the IMPOSTER.
Soooo, talk is cheep among the “no stones” pubbies. IMHO, the real challenge to the Imposter may well come from the ranks of the RATZ.
No fooling, those boyz got stones. And they may just be getting fed up with the “ONE.”
Always remember it was the RATZ who started the KKK, it was the RATZ who stood in the doorways of schools and polling places, it was the RATZ who sicced their dogs on the blacks, it was the RATZ who did Jim Crow, and it was the King RATZ, LBJ who boasted that his “war on poverty” “Put those N!!!erz Ballz in our pocket for the next 150 years.”
Bottom line, RATZ have a history of dumping the black man, when the black man becomes “inconvenient.”
Some schools already have metal detectors.
How would a metal detector at Sandy Hook have stopped that guy, unless there were also armored doors, adequate to stop a determined assault for long enough to allow armed deterrent to arrive, that only allowed one person through at a time?
Does it give right to armed resistance to tyranny?
Absolutely. Otherwise it would be totally meaningless.
Why do the anti-gun morons think the Second Amendment was created in the first place?
And why does Article V of the Constitution exist at all?
(Yes, that is a trick question.)
The Second Amendment protects the People's preexisting right to armed revolt, in the event the government should descend into tyranny... as has happened in places like Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cambodia, etc.
Glad I could clear that up.
Uuhhh, I like your thinking.
OTH, don’t you realize that you would need to round up all the demoKaRATZ too?
The party of treason needs to be brought to HEEL.
Maybe it needs to be disbanded and those culpable, put on trial and given LONG, LONG jail terms.
Please read my whole post before you tell me I’m wrong. The Founding Fathers knew that they were traitors and dead men if they failed. (Ben Franklin: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”)
Its amazing how we complain about the media turning everything into a sound bite, and we do it right here by cutting a sound bite out of a short post.
I'll answer this question. The answer is no. The right of the people to armed revolt to remove an oppressive government is a pre-existing right, it is a natural right that arises from our human nature and/or God.
The 2nd Amendments purpose is to ensure that the People have to tools necessary to exercise that right.
H.H. was a lefty gun nut.
It’s instances like these where you realize how far way they are from us, and how thoroughly they’ve influenced the average dope (I, for clarification’s sake, am an unusual dope, is all) through school and the MSM. They haven’t read our books, listened to our conversations, and so on. Justified armed revolt sounds loony to them, no matter how common it’s been in US history and despite the fact that without we wouldn’t have a country.
“Guns are uniquely efficient killing machines.”
[Raspberry!] Guns are difficult to kill with, even for those well trained and who use them every day. Bombs are much, much more efficient. They are indiscriminate and kill or maim everything within a certain area. More people were killed by artillery in every war since at least the Civil War, maybe earlier, in US history.
You give far too much credit to guns.
Nope. That you have to take for yourself.
And if you lose, be ready to face the Hangman.
Apparently the satire/sarcasm wasn’t obvious enough.
Because It’s not about the children it’s about Gun control!
The Government has spent Sixty billion dollars since 9/11 on just the TSA alone patting down little old ladies and making more of a effort to NOT profile people than really do their jobs.Then they tell us that it would cost too much to put armed guards at the schools. Lying Socialist Pigs!
IMHO the right to revolt against a repressive government is found not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence. The opening sentence, while not as famous as some other sentences, clearly states that the people have the natural right to dissolve an existing political system.
All the Second Amendment does is to give the people the ability to enforce that breakup by giving them the same military capabilities as the stand Federal Army (musket verses musket). If anything, the real impact of the Second Amendment has been severely weakened over the last 200 years.