No comments at the site, and I am not able to log in, likely due to my operating system.
The author makes a silly claim about sacrificing generations of children for a right we will not use...
When you go after the king you had better take him out. (old saying)
If the government has gotten corrupt and it is not possible to correct it by usual means then I think the Constitution sort of demands it.
I think we may be in that situation now. The press has become so one sided and crooked that they can make most people think right is wrong and vice versa.
People who don’t have a strong sense of skepticism or proper training from birth will just about certainly be fooled.
Can someone seriously please answer this idea I had immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting.....
Why is no one proposing just putting in Metal Detectors at the school entrances...??
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.
Absolutely not.
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.
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.
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.
I am sure the Founders’ intent regarding armed resistance to tyranny was something like what the DemocRats say is their position on abortion: it should be legal, and rare.
Except that the Founders weren’t lying and the ‘Rats are.
“Rare” comes around pretty often for things that ‘Rats want, and it may be coming around fairly soon on some stuff they will regret.
There is no “right” to armed revolt. That action is a solemn duty (at least if those who rebel against tyranny succeed), or an act of treason (if the tyrants prevail). The decision between the two depends on whether those who participate pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor . . . or just their posting stance online.
1776 Fact Check: Declaration of Independence
“...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...He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
These SOBs don’t have ANY respect for us. Their time is coming.
.....”it was actually exercised in the battle of Athens, TN, in 1946.”
Today I got an email containing the 13:32 video of the battle in Athens, TN by returning G.I.’s from WWII. What an eye opener this film is to those not yet convinced that our Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they put the second amendment in the Constitution.
This video can be found prominently on Youtube....just punch in BATTLE OF ATHENS.
Let no man, or group of men -- and certainly no entity of man's making such as government -- oppress or enslave those whom God has created in His own image. It would be a sin. It would be just as great a sin for those who are enslaved to allow it to happen and thus allow a living image of the Almighty to be defiled.
So we have a Divine right, indeed a Divine duty, to throw off any such shackles. The Framers spoke of it in great specificity and referred to it in the Declaration of Independence, as lots of others have pointed here.
The Constitution doesn't give us the right or duty to throw off the chains of tyranny (that emerges from our special relationship with God). The 2nd Amendment merely attempts to guarantee that we'll have the means to do it if it ever becomes necessary. (just my two-cent opinion)
have the right to revolt by force.
Actually, you have the “obligation” to protect that right.
An argument made by none other than Alexander Hamilton.
In Federalist 29, Hamilton says:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Hamilton says that the armed militia is a protection against a despotic government using the army to enslave the people.
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
I'd argue that we're seeing today the very "wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration." Obama has been itching for a fight, and he's calculated his actions to specifically spite Republicans and prosperous Americans.
Hamilton said, "If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs."
It's not impossible to believe anymore.
-PJ