Open Letter To Beto RE 2nd Amendment

[ThunderKiss1965]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

What ?

 

[Vastator]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

What ?

 

[Zorro!]

 

[Zorro!]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

What ?

The First Amendment protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process – to remove from office elected officials with elections, or where the courts invalidate laws enacted by elected officials that violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

There’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that authorizes the people to overthrow a lawfully elected government through force of arms; it was not the intent of the Framers to amend the Constitution to enable the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

Tyranny is prevented by safeguarding freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble to oppose government action contrary to the will of the people.

The Second Amendment protects the individual right of the people to possess firearms for lawful self-defense – to defend against criminal attack and activity, not to protect against the perceived ‘tyranny’ of government.

 

[westwall]

I consider government a necessary evil the less you are required to have of it the better off you are

a perfect society would be one that no government at all is required

"the less you are required"
Who sets the standard for requirement?

We do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The wrongheaded idiocy of the Second Amendment being a ‘bulwark’ against ‘tyranny’ is based on the failed, pathetic efforts of conservatives to ‘justify’ the owning of AR 15s; that to prohibit the possession of AR 15s renders citizens ‘defenseless’ against a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Naïve and sophomoric, conservatives’ advocacy of insurrectionist dogma is both inane and completely devoid of merit.

The notion that citizens will ‘resist tyranny’ with semi-automatic rifles and carbines against forces armed with fully automatic firearms and a host of other advanced tactical weapons is beyond ridiculous.

Indeed, if private citizens were to defend against an American government having become tyrannical, it would be done in the manner of the insurgency against the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan: with IEDs against soft and exposed targets, along with the destruction of roads, bridges, airports, and communication infrastructure – a strategy that can be successfully pursued absent AR 15s.

 

[JustAGuy1]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

What ?

The First Amendment protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process – to remove from office elected officials with elections, or where the courts invalidate laws enacted by elected officials that violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

There’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that authorizes the people to overthrow a lawfully elected government through force of arms; it was not the intent of the Framers to amend the Constitution to enable the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

Tyranny is prevented by safeguarding freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble to oppose government action contrary to the will of the people.

The Second Amendment protects the individual right of the people to possess firearms for lawful self-defense – to defend against criminal attack and activity, not to protect against the perceived ‘tyranny’ of government.

"The Second Amendment protects the individual right of the people to possess firearms for lawful self-defense – to defend against criminal attack and activity, not to protect against the perceived ‘tyranny’ of government."

Too funny. Because Govs NEVER over step their authority. You're a bright one.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The wrongheaded idiocy of the Second Amendment being a ‘bulwark’ against ‘tyranny’ is based on the failed, pathetic efforts of conservatives to ‘justify’ the owning of AR 15s; that to prohibit the possession of AR 15s renders citizens ‘defenseless’ against a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Naïve and sophomoric, conservatives’ advocacy of insurrectionist dogma is both inane and completely devoid of merit.

The notion that citizens will ‘resist tyranny’ with semi-automatic rifles and carbines against forces armed with fully automatic firearms and a host of other advanced tactical weapons is beyond ridiculous.

Indeed, if private citizens were to defend against an American government having become tyrannical, it would be done in the manner of the insurgency against the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan: with IEDs against soft and exposed targets, along with the destruction of roads, bridges, airports, and communication infrastructure – a strategy that can be successfully pursued absent AR 15s.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“f 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.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Did the founders make themselves clear?

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

You're dismissed

 

[SavannahMann]

I do not support violence or overthrowing the government, but I will not sit by and become a victim of tyranny be it at the hands of the government or the thugs on the street.

Yes you will, the NG will see to it or the Army who is fighting at the command of the Potus. You'd get your butt in prison.

Right. So let me get this straight. Sons and Daughters would attack their families and neighbors over the 2nd Amendment?

Would you attack your friends and family over any issue? Or would you refuse to attack?

 

[westwall]

I do not support violence or overthrowing the government, but I will not sit by and become a victim of tyranny be it at the hands of the government or the thugs on the street.

Yes you will, the NG will see to it or the Army who is fighting at the command of the Potus. You'd get your butt in prison.

The NG is on our side sweetie. You need to wake up.

 

[westwall]

I do not support violence or overthrowing the government, but I will not sit by and become a victim of tyranny be it at the hands of the government or the thugs on the street.

Yes you will, the NG will see to it or the Army who is fighting at the command of the Potus. You'd get your butt in prison.

Right. So let me get this straight. Sons and Daughters would attack their families and neighbors over the 2nd Amendment?

Would you attack your friends and family over any issue? Or would you refuse to attack?

I think you need to review your history books. Brother already fought against brother. Many times over. You are living in dreamland if you think gun owners are going to just roll over and die.

 

[westwall]

It's the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

Sure thing mr. pseudo intellectual. That First Amendment is soooo powerful. What a fucking retard.

 

[francoHFW]

Lifted from an email sent to me. 100% concur.


Dear Beto,

Can I call you Beto? Great.

Anyway, I wanted to take a few moments to write an open letter to you regarding some of your recent thoughts on gun control. In particular, your comments regarding mandatory buybacks.

On The View earlier this week, Meghan McCain commented that such an act would trigger violence. Her comment sparked outrage all over the internet. You, yourself, argued that McCain’s comments amounted to “It becomes self-fulfilling; you have people on TV who are almost giving you permission to be violent and saying, ‘You know this is this is going to happen.’”

Allow me to clue you in on something, Beto. There’s not a single gun owner in this country who is looking to Meghan McCain for permission to oppose the tyranny of a mandatory buyback.

McCain’s comments weren’t permission, they were a warning. It wasn’t something new, something she just pulled out of the ether in order to spark some controversy. She’s merely echoing the statements people have made for decades regarding their willingness to die for their Second Amendment rights.

By claiming its a self-fulfilling prophecy and that people like McCain are giving people permission, you’re telling on yourself. You’re telling each and every one of us that you have never bothered to listen to a damn thing any of us have said.

I didn’t even know who Meghan McCain was when I first heard someone issue the dire warning that if some form of gun confiscation were to happen, the first thing the jackboots trying to take them would get was the ammunition delivered at high velocity. The gun-rights community has warned that efforts to take away or guns would lead to civil war for years now.

You just didn’t want to listen.

We often talk about lawmakers being out of touch, and you’ve just become the poster boy for that, Beto. You are so wrapped up in your liberal bubble that you simply can’t understand that this is a thing, this is something we’ve gone on about for ages. You can’t understand it because you don’t want to understand it. In your mind, we’re all just good little drones who will do whatever Big Daddy Government wants us to do.

We’re not.

We’re the heirs of Lexington and Concord. We’re the children of Valley Forge and Bunker Hill. We’re a defiant, freedom-loving bunch that isn’t rolling over because some spoiled rich kid thinks we should.

Let me make it clear for you. If you come for our guns, we are going to fight back. We don’t look to Meghan McCain for permission to do that. She could tell us not to, and we’d still fight back.

Beto, you need to understand. You need to learn. You need to come to grasp the simple fact that we’re not like you. We don’t look at government as an unmitigated good whose lead we should always follow. We have reasons for that. It’s called the history of the 20th Century filled with countless atrocities, atrocities carried out under the umbrella of government.

Those atrocities could only be carried out because the populations were unarmed.

We’re not sheep. We will not be herded into genocide all because some well-meaning but sheltered rich boy who has never lived in a high-crime neighborhood in his life could tell us what we need and don’t need.

Meghan McCain gave no one permission for anything. Further, gun owners don’t need such a permission. Our permission was penned in 1776 and signed on July 4th.

- Tom Knighton

like many of you nut jobs, he appears to be close to insane and should give up his military style weapons... You know the effects they have on many brainwashed wackjobs.... Genocide my butt. LOL

 

[JustAGuy1]

I do not support violence or overthrowing the government, but I will not sit by and become a victim of tyranny be it at the hands of the government or the thugs on the street.

Yes you will, the NG will see to it or the Army who is fighting at the command of the Potus. You'd get your butt in prison.

Your only uniform was a Blue Bird Uni. The military will not follow an illegal order.

 

[JustAGuy1]

I do not support violence or overthrowing the government, but I will not sit by and become a victim of tyranny be it at the hands of the government or the thugs on the street.

Yes you will, the NG will see to it or the Army who is fighting at the command of the Potus. You'd get your butt in prison.

Those serving in the Military do not have to follow an unlawful order. Arresting people who are exercising a Constitutional right would be unlawful. As far as the National Guard goes they would be arresting friends and family so I don't believe they are going to play ball either.
You fucking loons never hash out the consequences of you agenda.

And you'd get court marshalled. An unlawful order coming from the Potus, you have got to be kidding.

So President's "can't" issue an illegal order?
You loved Nixon then didn't you?

 

[westwall]

Lifted from an email sent to me. 100% concur.


Dear Beto,

Can I call you Beto? Great.

Anyway, I wanted to take a few moments to write an open letter to you regarding some of your recent thoughts on gun control. In particular, your comments regarding mandatory buybacks.

On The View earlier this week, Meghan McCain commented that such an act would trigger violence. Her comment sparked outrage all over the internet. You, yourself, argued that McCain’s comments amounted to “It becomes self-fulfilling; you have people on TV who are almost giving you permission to be violent and saying, ‘You know this is this is going to happen.’”

Allow me to clue you in on something, Beto. There’s not a single gun owner in this country who is looking to Meghan McCain for permission to oppose the tyranny of a mandatory buyback.

McCain’s comments weren’t permission, they were a warning. It wasn’t something new, something she just pulled out of the ether in order to spark some controversy. She’s merely echoing the statements people have made for decades regarding their willingness to die for their Second Amendment rights.

By claiming its a self-fulfilling prophecy and that people like McCain are giving people permission, you’re telling on yourself. You’re telling each and every one of us that you have never bothered to listen to a damn thing any of us have said.

I didn’t even know who Meghan McCain was when I first heard someone issue the dire warning that if some form of gun confiscation were to happen, the first thing the jackboots trying to take them would get was the ammunition delivered at high velocity. The gun-rights community has warned that efforts to take away or guns would lead to civil war for years now.

You just didn’t want to listen.

We often talk about lawmakers being out of touch, and you’ve just become the poster boy for that, Beto. You are so wrapped up in your liberal bubble that you simply can’t understand that this is a thing, this is something we’ve gone on about for ages. You can’t understand it because you don’t want to understand it. In your mind, we’re all just good little drones who will do whatever Big Daddy Government wants us to do.

We’re not.

We’re the heirs of Lexington and Concord. We’re the children of Valley Forge and Bunker Hill. We’re a defiant, freedom-loving bunch that isn’t rolling over because some spoiled rich kid thinks we should.

Let me make it clear for you. If you come for our guns, we are going to fight back. We don’t look to Meghan McCain for permission to do that. She could tell us not to, and we’d still fight back.

Beto, you need to understand. You need to learn. You need to come to grasp the simple fact that we’re not like you. We don’t look at government as an unmitigated good whose lead we should always follow. We have reasons for that. It’s called the history of the 20th Century filled with countless atrocities, atrocities carried out under the umbrella of government.

Those atrocities could only be carried out because the populations were unarmed.

We’re not sheep. We will not be herded into genocide all because some well-meaning but sheltered rich boy who has never lived in a high-crime neighborhood in his life could tell us what we need and don’t need.

Meghan McCain gave no one permission for anything. Further, gun owners don’t need such a permission. Our permission was penned in 1776 and signed on July 4th.

- Tom Knighton

like many of you nut jobs, he appears to be close to insane and should give up his military style weapons... You know the effects they have on many brainwashed wackjobs.... Genocide my butt. LOL

Yeah, it seems to be you asswagons doing all the shooting. ALL progressives should be disarmed IMMEDIATELY!

 

[2aguy]

The wrongheaded idiocy of the Second Amendment being a ‘bulwark’ against ‘tyranny’ is based on the failed, pathetic efforts of conservatives to ‘justify’ the owning of AR 15s; that to prohibit the possession of AR 15s renders citizens ‘defenseless’ against a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Naïve and sophomoric, conservatives’ advocacy of insurrectionist dogma is both inane and completely devoid of merit.

The notion that citizens will ‘resist tyranny’ with semi-automatic rifles and carbines against forces armed with fully automatic firearms and a host of other advanced tactical weapons is beyond ridiculous.

Indeed, if private citizens were to defend against an American government having become tyrannical, it would be done in the manner of the insurgency against the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan: with IEDs against soft and exposed targets, along with the destruction of roads, bridges, airports, and communication infrastructure – a strategy that can be successfully pursued absent AR 15s.

You mean other than the actual writings of the members of the Founding....you mean other than what they actually wrote about the need for armed citizens...right?

 

[2aguy]

The wrongheaded idiocy of the Second Amendment being a ‘bulwark’ against ‘tyranny’ is based on the failed, pathetic efforts of conservatives to ‘justify’ the owning of AR 15s; that to prohibit the possession of AR 15s renders citizens ‘defenseless’ against a government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Naïve and sophomoric, conservatives’ advocacy of insurrectionist dogma is both inane and completely devoid of merit.

The notion that citizens will ‘resist tyranny’ with semi-automatic rifles and carbines against forces armed with fully automatic firearms and a host of other advanced tactical weapons is beyond ridiculous.

Indeed, if private citizens were to defend against an American government having become tyrannical, it would be done in the manner of the insurgency against the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan: with IEDs against soft and exposed targets, along with the destruction of roads, bridges, airports, and communication infrastructure – a strategy that can be successfully pursued absent AR 15s.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“f 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.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Did the founders make themselves clear?

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

You're dismissed

Yes...thank you......clayton is an idiot, and thanks for showing exactly how big an idiot he is...

 

[Rustic]

Those serving in the Military do not have to follow an unlawful order. Arresting people who are exercising a Constitutional right would be unlawful. As far as the National Guard goes they would be arresting friends and family so I don't believe they are going to play ball either.
You fucking loons never hash out the consequences of you agenda.

And you'd get court marshalled. An unlawful order coming from the Potus, you have got to be kidding.

Trump is coming for you not me, because I am not a threat to his administration or the government. You leftist are.

So you admit tramp goes after opponents, we are sure of it. If you were anti something he did or said, you'd be an opponent.

It's your side that calls him a dictator worse than Hitler. You must really be ignorant or mentally challenged to want to disarm citizens when you have a fear of a leader that acts like Hitler in your sides mind.

Why he doesn't have one, he uses his mouth and the courts. Also, I'm willing to let you keep your guns and a 10 bullet magazine.