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’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?
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.