U.S. Army prepares to invade Texas

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

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

Originally Posted by nailer

I don't think the Constitution in any way authorizes armed insurrection.

What then is the purpose of being armed "as a deterrent to tyrants"?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Answering a question with a question is proof of a bankrupt position.

Please tell me where in the 2nd Amendment is the right of rebellion against our own government expressed. It isn't even implied.

And the idea of a bunch of bushmaster-toting rednecks trying to overthrow the US by defeating the most powerful army in the world is most definitely suicidal.

You still have not answered my question about suicidal responsible citizens, or are you implying that a bunch of bushmaster-toting rednecks trying to overthrow the US by defeating the most powerful army in the world is your idea of responsible citizens?

Where did I say that the 2nd Amendment expresses the right of rebellion against the government?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

You still have not answered my question about suicidal responsible citizens, or are you implying that a bunch of bushmaster-toting rednecks trying to overthrow the US by defeating the most powerful army in the world is your idea of responsible citizenry?

What other purpose do you see in an armed citizenry standing against a tyrannical government? So, yes, I have answered which is more than you have.

Where did I say that the 2nd Amendment expresses the right of rebellion against the government?

The ongoing conversation in this thread, and the post you initially replied to, concern the 2nd Amendment. Your reply was as follows.

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

So, it was legitimate to ask you how a rebellious populace was specifically licensed by the 2nd Amendment. So far, you haven't answered and I don't think you can in anything resembling a satisfactory manner.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Well, we have a standing army these days and have for a very long time. It's a rather large one, I believe. Also, armed insurrection can't reasonably be described as "petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances" so I don't see the relevance of this quote.

WTF are you talking about?

Good to know GW supports our Second Amendment rights.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

What other purpose do you see in an armed citizenry standing against a tyrannical government? So, yes, I have answered which is more than you have.



The ongoing conversation in this thread, and the post you initially replied to, concern the 2nd Amendment. Your reply was as follows.

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

So, it was legitimate to ask you how a rebellious populace was specifically licensed by the 2nd Amendment. So far, you haven't answered and I don't think you can in anything resembling a satisfactory manner.

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.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

WTF are you talking about?

I'm saying that your Washington quote it totally irrelevant. It in no way supports your belief in the virtue of an armed populace or even refers to it.

[donquixote99]

Some of the framers were of a revolutionary spirit that wanted 'the people' to be able to win a fight with 'the government.' Some thought such notions heedless of the need for order and the dangers of insurrection. The Second Amendment represents language unclear enough that both sorts could stand it. The basic thrust of what's in the constitution here and elsewhere is that the militia was supposed to always be much stronger than central government forces, except when the nation was mobilized for war. The federal army's funding required reappropriation every two years, which was thought a sufficient means to sharply limit it's size. The framer's could not imagine a House of Representatives that authorized the ruinous cost of a large peacetime army being re-elected. This pretty much worked as intended until after WWII....

Militias have a very checkered history, and it seems clear that the framer's faith in them was misplaced. Seems to me the notion of popular armament as the basis of the militia is obsolete.

I'm OK with pistols and shotguns for home defense, but I think we should draw the line at citizens routinely going about armed, absent special showing of need recognized by license.

But the Second, it seems to me, does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms, as the courts in recent times have found. Restrictions as I suggest require a new amendment.

[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

The Second Amendment represents language unclear enough that both sorts could stand it.

The first clause in the 2nd Amendment defines the purpose and delineates its application. It is for the defense of the State by a duly constituted and "well regulated" Militia. There is nothing in the Amendment that even implies that it is intended as a check on government power.

It's important to keep in mind that, the only times state militias were employed, it was to put down rebellions, not to conduct them.

The basic thrust of what's in the constitution here and elsewhere is that the militia was supposed to always be much stronger than central government forces, except when the nation was mobilized for war.

The 2nd amendment doesn't address this point at all but I'm open to being persuaded. Could you point me to other references in the text of the Constitution?

The federal army's funding required reappropriation every two years, which was thought a sufficient means to sharply limit it's size.

Still does. How big are our armed forces now?

Militias have a very checkered history, and it seems clear that the framer's faith in them was misplaced.

Checkered in what way?

Seems to me the notion of popular armament as the basis of the militia is obsolete.

Here we agree and, since the maintenance of popular militias was the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment, it too is obsolete.

But the Second, it seems to me, does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms, as the courts in recent times have found. Restrictions as I suggest require a new amendment.

Courts aside, the 2nd Amendment specifically states that the framework for the people's right to "keep and bear" (not "own") arms is the militia and the stated purpose of the militia is the preservation of the State, not its overthrow.