U.S. Army prepares to invade Texas

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

This thread is about the recent invaision of Texas. I was sharing an observation with Pio1980 about his post and your hard-on popped up.

Please read the following.

Originally Posted by Pio1980

"Intent" is the core of disputed interpretations, I'm quite sure the NRA has a different interpretation of the obtuse phrasing.
I'm also pretty sure the phrasing does NOT sanction armed insurrection for ANY reason as some insist it does.

Originally Posted by nailer

Our revolution was a successful armed insurrection. Responsible citizens have the right to arm themselves as a deterrent to tyrants.

No logical reading of this exchange could fail to interpret your response as being in support of the "armed insurrection" Steve refers to. By pointing out that we owe our existence as a country to an armed insurrection and following with the "responsible citizens" comment, you have positioned yourself in support of the violent overthrow of the US government.

Period. End of story.

Because this exchange between you and Steve was, despite the thread title, about the 2nd Amendment, I asked you to tell me where the right to armed insurrection was expressed in the text of the Amendment. So far, you've avoided answering. Will you answer now? "It isn't" would be an acceptable answer.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Boreas

... tell me where the right to armed insurrection was expressed in the text of the Amendment.

It's between the lines for those who want it to be, and it isn't for those who don't. This is by design.

The 'right of insurrection,' when you get down to it, is logically impossible. If it's a right, it's not insurrection.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It's between the lines for those who want it to be, and it isn't for those who don't. This is by design.

I profoundly disagree. Armed revolt is utterly antithetical "to the security of a free State".

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I profoundly disagree. Armed revolt is utterly antithetical "to the security of a free State".

That just puts you in the "don't" camp.

What you find antithetical just doesn't matter to those who want to 'believe in insurrection.' Indeed, they would argue that the 'security of a free state' means 'the security of a free state,' and that if a state isn't free, its security is irrelevant and actually undesirable. Thus, the security of a free state may actually require insurrection.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I profoundly disagree. Armed revolt is utterly antithetical "to the security of a free State".

What if the State is no longer free?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

What if the State is no longer free?

Then the militia has failed.

The point isn't whether or not armed insurrection is ever justified. It's whether or not it's licensed by the 2nd Amendment.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Please read the following.





No logical reading of this exchange could fail to interpret your response as being in support of the "armed insurrection" Steve refers to. By pointing out that we owe our existence as a country to an armed insurrection and following with the "responsible citizens" comment, you have positioned yourself in support of the violent overthrow of the US government.

Period. End of story.

Because this exchange between you and Steve was, despite the thread title, about the 2nd Amendment, I asked you to tell me where the right to armed insurrection was expressed in the text of the Amendment. So far, you've avoided answering. Will you answer now? "It isn't" would be an acceptable answer.

I do not answer to tyrants!