If the 2nd Amendment was to enable the overthrow of a tyrannical government...

[Delta4Embassy]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

 

[PratchettFan]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

Absolutely. When the rebellion succeeds.

 

[Sonny Clark]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

 

[cnm]

Dead right, treason never succeeds.

 

[cnm]

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point.

You've mistaken the condition required to render legality moot.

 

[Sonny Clark]

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point.

You've mistaken the condition required to render legality moot.

How so? Please explain my error. Thanks.

 

[Roadrunner]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

I think it was more to remind them not to get tyrannical in the first place, but, seems they forgot.

Much more of the kind of crap we have had in the last 50 years, and it might be time to water the tree of Liberty again.

 

[Roadrunner]

Dead right, treason never succeeds.

Obama seems to be getting away with it.

 

[Sonny Clark]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

I think it was more to remind them not to get tyrannical in the first place, but, seems they forgot.

Much more of the kind of crap we have had in the last 50 years, and it might be time to water the tree of Liberty again.

AMEN !!!! ------ I totally agree.

 

[Roadrunner]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

I thing it is time we stressed no representation without taxation.

That 47% pay no federal personal income tax is tyrannical.

Since the Founding Fathers specifically forbade an income tax, and an amendment was needed to get one, I think it is time for another one, one that allows a head tax, payable in cash, or in labor.

No skin in the game, no voting rights.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

Is the government still 'representative' of the governed? Avg congressperson's a multimillionaire. Avg citizen is lower middle class.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

To put that another way, the USA is an aprtheid-like nation where a minority of very rich people rule a majority of very poor ones.

 

[PratchettFan]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

I thing it is time we stressed no representation without taxation.

That 47% pay no federal personal income tax is tyrannical.

Since the Founding Fathers specifically forbade an income tax, and an amendment was needed to get one, I think it is time for another one, one that allows a head tax, payable in cash, or in labor.

No skin in the game, no voting rights.

Yes. Damn those people for being too poor or old. How dare they.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

I think it was more to remind them not to get tyrannical in the first place, but, seems they forgot.

Much more of the kind of crap we have had in the last 50 years, and it might be time to water the tree of Liberty again.

It's gonna get harder to do when you replace real Americans with bunch of immigrants that dont have the slightest idea as to how we became such a great country.
All they see is free shit.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

I thing it is time we stressed no representation without taxation.

That 47% pay no federal personal income tax is tyrannical.

Since the Founding Fathers specifically forbade an income tax, and an amendment was needed to get one, I think it is time for another one, one that allows a head tax, payable in cash, or in labor.

No skin in the game, no voting rights.

Absofuckinglutely!!!

 

[cnm]

How so? Please explain my error. Thanks.

Treason never succeeds and here is the reason,
If treason doth succeed none dare call it treason.

 

[Roadrunner]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

Is the government still 'representative' of the governed? Avg congressperson's a multimillionaire. Avg citizen is lower middle class.

Don't worry, average citizen will soon be poor.

Reduced to the lowest common denominator, we will soon reach that Left Utopia, the classless society(elite rulers being the exception, as Lenin wanted).

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

I thing it is time we stressed no representation without taxation.

That 47% pay no federal personal income tax is tyrannical.

Since the Founding Fathers specifically forbade an income tax, and an amendment was needed to get one, I think it is time for another one, one that allows a head tax, payable in cash, or in labor.

No skin in the game, no voting rights.

Yes. Damn those people for being too poor or old. How dare they.

Whats old have to do with it?
When you contribute nothing to society and you can vote yourself largess from the tax payer it's a losing game that will eventually collapse the system. Should the poor be allowed into a sporting event for free just because they're poor? How about a cruise in the Caribbean?
No payment into the system no vote.

 

[Roadrunner]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

I thing it is time we stressed no representation without taxation.

That 47% pay no federal personal income tax is tyrannical.

Since the Founding Fathers specifically forbade an income tax, and an amendment was needed to get one, I think it is time for another one, one that allows a head tax, payable in cash, or in labor.

No skin in the game, no voting rights.

Yes. Damn those people for being too poor or old. How dare they.

The ld" have most of the wealth in this country.

Anybody able bodied poor in this land of free basic education and virtually unlimited opportunity have none to blame but themselves.

 

[PratchettFan]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

I thing it is time we stressed no representation without taxation.

That 47% pay no federal personal income tax is tyrannical.

Since the Founding Fathers specifically forbade an income tax, and an amendment was needed to get one, I think it is time for another one, one that allows a head tax, payable in cash, or in labor.

No skin in the game, no voting rights.

Yes. Damn those people for being too poor or old. How dare they.

Whats old have to do with it?
When you contribute nothing to society and you can vote yourself largess from the tax payer it's a losing game that will eventually collapse the system. Should the poor be allowed into a sporting event for free just because they're poor? How about a cruise in the Caribbean?
No payment into the system no vote.

Old has everything to do with it. You should check up on exactly who this 47% (actually it is more like 44% now) are. Most of them pay payroll tax, IOW they have money deducted from their pay check, but make so little they end up paying no income tax after deductions. Those damn poor people not starving their children are such a pain and should have no say. Of the rest, we are talking 2/3 people who are too old to work and live on social security. Where are those isolated ice flows when you need them? Then there are the people too disabled to work. Soylent Green anyone? About 3% remain who fall into none of those categories, and they are mostly children. Are there no work houses?