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

[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.

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?

Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.

 

[ralfy]

The purpose of the Second was to form regulated militias to support the standing army of the government. That's why it's seen in light of Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

 

[PratchettFan]

"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?

Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.

But you're not going to actually check the numbers, are you. I ended that with a period rather than a question mark because there really is no question. You've got a number you like, so why find out what's behind it? You might not like the answer. Just another drone.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.

But you're not going to actually check the numbers, are you. I ended that with a period rather than a question mark because there really is no question. You've got a number you like, so why find out what's behind it? You might not like the answer. Just another drone.

I'm smart enough not to rely on SS so your numbers really dont mean shit to me personally.
If we had a better economy there'd be more money in the SS coffers. Dems are leading us down a road where SS will fail because it cant be funded from the min wage jobs they tout as a success. Stop taxing and regulating the shit out of business and let capitalism work and we'll have better paying jobs that dont go overseas.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.

But you're not going to actually check the numbers, are you. I ended that with a period rather than a question mark because there really is no question. You've got a number you like, so why find out what's behind it? You might not like the answer. Just another drone.

I'm smart enough not to rely on SS so your numbers really dont mean shit to me personally.
If we had a better economy there'd be more money in the SS coffers. Dems are leading us down a road where SS will fail because it cant be funded from the min wage jobs they tout as a success. Stop taxing and regulating the shit out of business and let capitalism work and we'll have better paying jobs that dont go overseas.

Yes, I understand what you have been told to believe. Accepting that is what drones do.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.

But you're not going to actually check the numbers, are you. I ended that with a period rather than a question mark because there really is no question. You've got a number you like, so why find out what's behind it? You might not like the answer. Just another drone.

I'm smart enough not to rely on SS so your numbers really dont mean shit to me personally.
If we had a better economy there'd be more money in the SS coffers. Dems are leading us down a road where SS will fail because it cant be funded from the min wage jobs they tout as a success. Stop taxing and regulating the shit out of business and let capitalism work and we'll have better paying jobs that dont go overseas.

Yes, I understand what you have been told to believe. Accepting that is what drones do.

So you think this obammy economy is going to solve the problem?
You're dumber than a bag of hammers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...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?

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First Amendment.

Americans have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, either through the political process or the judicial.

That a given contingent of the American people might subjectively perceive the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical' does not authorize them to seek to circumvent either the political or legal process, denying the rest of the American people their rights enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

[Roadrunner]

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?

Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.

But you're not going to actually check the numbers, are you. I ended that with a period rather than a question mark because there really is no question. You've got a number you like, so why find out what's behind it? You might not like the answer. Just another drone.

I'm smart enough not to rely on SS so your numbers really dont mean shit to me personally.
If we had a better economy there'd be more money in the SS coffers. Dems are leading us down a road where SS will fail because it cant be funded from the min wage jobs they tout as a success. Stop taxing and regulating the shit out of business and let capitalism work and we'll have better paying jobs that dont go overseas.

I don't even get SS.

I went into a Teacher Retirement system, and all the SS I paid as a well paid Merchant Marine has been stolen from me.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.

But you're not going to actually check the numbers, are you. I ended that with a period rather than a question mark because there really is no question. You've got a number you like, so why find out what's behind it? You might not like the answer. Just another drone.

I'm smart enough not to rely on SS so your numbers really dont mean shit to me personally.
If we had a better economy there'd be more money in the SS coffers. Dems are leading us down a road where SS will fail because it cant be funded from the min wage jobs they tout as a success. Stop taxing and regulating the shit out of business and let capitalism work and we'll have better paying jobs that dont go overseas.

I don't even get SS.

I went into a Teacher Retirement system, and all the SS I paid as a well paid Merchant Marine has been stolen from me.

Thats fucked up!
I wont need mine,but I'll damn sure take it if it's still around.
I'll use it for ammo money.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.

But you're not going to actually check the numbers, are you. I ended that with a period rather than a question mark because there really is no question. You've got a number you like, so why find out what's behind it? You might not like the answer. Just another drone.

I'm smart enough not to rely on SS so your numbers really dont mean shit to me personally.
If we had a better economy there'd be more money in the SS coffers. Dems are leading us down a road where SS will fail because it cant be funded from the min wage jobs they tout as a success. Stop taxing and regulating the shit out of business and let capitalism work and we'll have better paying jobs that dont go overseas.

Yes, I understand what you have been told to believe. Accepting that is what drones do.

So you think this obammy economy is going to solve the problem?
You're dumber than a bag of hammers.

You really do need to practice thinking. You aren't good at it at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SONNY CLARK SAID:

“If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point.”

What constitutes 'enough' citizens – 51 percent, two-thirds; where in Constitutional case law is 'enough' defined.

And what are the criteria as to when government becomes 'tyrannical,' and who determines consensus concerning that criteria.

Last, what of Americans who don't consider it 'necessary,' are they and their First Amendment rights simply going to be ignored because 'some' Americans consider armed rebellion 'necessary.'

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

Another dumbass who thinks SS is welfare.

But you're not going to actually check the numbers, are you. I ended that with a period rather than a question mark because there really is no question. You've got a number you like, so why find out what's behind it? You might not like the answer. Just another drone.

I'm smart enough not to rely on SS so your numbers really dont mean shit to me personally.
If we had a better economy there'd be more money in the SS coffers. Dems are leading us down a road where SS will fail because it cant be funded from the min wage jobs they tout as a success. Stop taxing and regulating the shit out of business and let capitalism work and we'll have better paying jobs that dont go overseas.

I don't even get SS.

I went into a Teacher Retirement system, and all the SS I paid as a well paid Merchant Marine has been stolen from me.

I have no idea what the retirement system you are in works, but I am in one as well and it is in addition to SS, not as a substitute. I am not aware of any retirement system that eliminates your entitlement to social security. But perhaps you can educate me.

 

[PratchettFan]

SONNY CLARK SAID:

“If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point.”

What constitutes 'enough' citizens – 51 percent, two-thirds; where in Constitutional case law is 'enough' defined.

And what are the criteria as to when government becomes 'tyrannical,' and who determines consensus concerning that criteria.

Last, what of Americans who don't consider it 'necessary,' are they and their First Amendment rights simply going to be ignored because 'some' Americans consider armed rebellion 'necessary.'

If there is a successful rebellion, then references to the Constitution are irrelevant. The First Amendment only exists so long as we agree it does exists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...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.

This is true unmitigated ignorance and idiocy, and patently un-Constitutional.

It's also transparently partisan, yet another bad faith scheme to deny the vote to citizens you and most others on the right perceive to be likely voters for democratic candidates.

 

[Abatis]

...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?

Your fundamental premise is nonsensical; how can a tyrannical government be considered legal and thus owed the protections of the compact it is violating (e.g., prosecution for treason, sedition, insurrection . . . )?

Is there a constitutional rule that says the government can do whatever it wants, violate whatever limits the people set-out and codified in the Constitution and that the people are not only powerless to remedy the situation but remain forever absolutely constrained by the Constitution's protections of "government" no matter what it morphs into?

Aren't you (anti-gunners) the guys who usually argue that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact?

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

I support 2nd amendment and I do have a handgun.
BUT
It's a pity that most gun owners forgot about the true meaning of amendment to form militia to secure a free state. Gun shops don't mention it too...

 

[Abatis]

I support 2nd amendment and I do have a handgun.
BUT
It's a pity that most gun owners forgot about the true meaning of amendment to form militia to secure a free state. Gun shops don't mention it too...

You have swallowed the interpretation that is promoted by those who are hostile to the 2nd Amendment, not supportive of it. You might be kidding yourself, you certainly are not kidding anyone else.

Understand that the theory you embrace first appeared in the federal courts in 1942. It was created for only one purpose, to argue an alternate theory of the 2nd Amendment to extinguish the protection of the individual right to arms. The ONLY reason that theory is ever "cited" is to repel challenges to gun control laws.

The theory has never existed in the actual action claimed, that the 2nd Amendment protects the militia or protects state's militia powers or that the 2nd Amendment speaks to militia control or direction . . .

Specifically for your position, the 2nd Amendment has never been examined or held to have any value in actually forming, organizing, training or deploying militia. SCOTUS has only examined and cited the militia clauses in the body of the Constitution for any direction . . .

Your theory is a mirage, it is non-existent once you approach it from any other direction but to explain away securing an individual right.

Can you point to any instance where the 2nd Amendment was examined to inform Congress or the Courts on any point regarding the process and execution of forming the militia to secure a free state?

 

[whitehall]

The Bill of Rights (including #2) were not intended to "enable" anyone to do anything. They were created to be curbs on the government's power to limit freedom. The genius Founding Fathers merely ensured that God given freedoms would not be taken away by any transient regime. The FF established legitimate ways to limit freedoms but the basic rights are established in the 1st ten Amendments and (so far) the Supreme Court has upheld the right of citizens to keep and bear arms so crazy scenarios might be entertaining but they are moot.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...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.

the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government,


Just because you are unhappy with election results doesn't mean you can take up arms. we in the USA have a representative government


next

 

[legaleagle_45]

I support 2nd amendment and I do have a handgun.
BUT
It's a pity that most gun owners forgot about the true meaning of amendment to form militia to secure a free state. Gun shops don't mention it too...

Indeed the widespread private ownership of arms facilitates the capacity of a free state to organize a militia from the ranks of its citizens regardless of what the federal government does or does not do with regards to its obligation to provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia as detailed in Article I, Sec 8, Cl 16.