Ted Cruz: 2nd Amendment Is 'Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny'

[Statistikhengst]

What ARE the purposes for a Free Press?

Are THEY listed in the Constitution?

Free press is definitely listed and there are no reasons, because there need be no reasons: it's a right

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"


ARMED INSURRECTION is not listed as a Right in the US Constitution.

Get that through your head.

But better yet, if you really think that the 2nd amendment means that you can go shoot the gubbermint, don't let me stop you. And if you shoot someone and kill someone and then sit on death row for your own stupidity, I am not going to feel sorry for you. If you think that you can use the 2nd Amendment as a reason for murder, think again.

 

[kaz]

Are all gun owners such drama queens?

You're the drama queen, what are you talking about?

rightwinger: Drunken gun nuts would be no match for a modern military

You come on here day after day about how bad you have it as gun owners continue to slaughter other Americans

So what's your plan, big guy?

No shit Sherlock

Our drunk, untrained gun nuts would be annihilated by any modern military power

Begging the question. I already addressed this. You want to build on my answer to progress the conversation or just stick with your talking point?

 

[kaz]

What ARE the purposes for a Free Press?

Are THEY listed in the Constitution?

Free press is definitely listed and there are no reasons, because there need be no reasons: it's a right

But for guns, there had to be a reason because when they said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it wasn't clear what that meant. LOL, that's your argument.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No. I'm NOT evading at all. I am pointing out with concrete examples HOW AND WHY your "question" is utterly meaningless.

And I also see that your reference to "militia" is misguided.

I can see these things because, unlike you, I have actually studied these matters and understand them. You plainly don't.

I would recommend that you set aside a couple of hours to REALLY study the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald. Solid history lessons and legal insight into the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment is at your fingertips.

Here: I'll even give you a quick assist: McDonald v. Chicago 561 U.S. 2010 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Or two: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Happy reading.

Wait, are you a strict constitutionalist, or not?

That question might serve a purpose in a rational discussion, but since you appear not to grasp the meaning of the various terms involved, it seems silly to digress like that.

Get back to your homework assignment.

While you're at it try to contemplate if one is able to properly or adequately grasp the import of the words used in the Constitution outside of their meaning at the time the constitutional provisions were drafted.

So, are are still evading. Where exactly in the US Constitution are the people given the right to shoot the government?

Hint: there is a clause that allows the Government to put down armed insurrection. That clause IS in the US Constitution...

For a guy trying so hard to duck the hard topics, you are mighty quick at claiming that others "are are" engaged in evading.

Again, your "question" is valueless as you knew when you tried that deflection the last time. First of all, I haven't advocated that anybody has a "right" to shoot the government.

Secondly, to the extent that the people have a 2d Amendment guaranteed right to bear arms, one of the original purposes of which was to serve as a check against a tyrannical exercise by the government of unauthorized powers, that PURPOSE need not be part of the written text. Are you actually suggesting that the constitution is entirely textual in scope and if it aint written no such "right" or purpose exists?

That's a mighty odd suggestion coming from a lib.

Thirdly, l the authority of the GOVERNMENT to put down an armed insurrection has nothing to do with the purpose for the Second Amendment. You are confusing and conflating your arguments there, Skippy. Even those who recognize that ONE of the PURPOSES for the 2d Amendment is the possibility of checking the central government from acting tyrannically wouldn't have difficulty in acknowledging that any GOVERNMENT worth its salt also has to have legitimate and needed power to put down an illicit insurrection.

The former is not antithetical to -- nor even at odds with -- the latter.

You see, this is where your argument fails, miserably.

I strongly SUPPORT the second amendment, and I have owned a gun. Am a pretty good shot, too.

So, let's look at the exact wording of the 2nd amendment:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


That's it. That's the second amendment. Everything beyond that is interpretation, also based on case law.

The specific reason given was that we needed a "well regulated militia" because it was/is "necessary to the security of a free state".


Since the Constitution was written for the United States of America, the obvious assumption is that "state" means the USA in this case.

There is no clause in the 2nd amendment that supports armed insurrection, which is EXACTLY what Ted Cruz is alluding to.

However, there IS a clause in the US Constution about insurrections themselves:

Article I, Section VIII (8):

"Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


Please see the bolded, in green.


Also, there is the Insurrection Act, which is a law and has been law now for more than 200 years:

Insurrection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the ability of the President of the United States to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in10 U.S.C.§§ 331–335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed...

...Amendments of 2006[edit]

On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill(repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."

The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]

The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Please see the bolded, in green, in the text above.

So, you see, while you keep supporting something you cannot backup with actual law, I can support my argument.

Must really suck to be you.

Unlike you, I did support my argument and what I posted makes sense. You are merely babbling.

You keep noting that the Federal Government has passed laws forbidding insurrection. Wow. What a surprise. I was just SURE that they'd invite it.

You have shown NOTHING.

The entire POINT, you dolt, is that if they transgress the bounds of the Constitution and engage in tyranny the right of the People to keep and bear arms ALREADY means that the people are in a position to contest the tyranny. No further "permission" is required and none would EVER be expected.

The real mystery here is why you think that any would be required or that it would even be anticipated.

A government of limited authority and powers which nevertheless chooses to break those rules is hardly about to then permit armed opposition. ( A perfectly legitimate government wouldn't either, but an illegitimate tyrannical government certainly wouldn't.) Thankfully, no permission would be required. Because that was a done deal when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were RATIFIED.

Speaking of really sucking, and as much as I generally avoid discussing your life style, let's imagine that your beloved all powerful Federal government took a hard turn toward the elimination of gay rights and gays. But the law doesn't grant you "permission" to oppose them anymore. What would you do?

Petition them nicely for a redress of grievances? "Please, sirs and madams, I'd very much like your permission to rally against you and your misbegotten bigoted laws and if you refuse to alter your policies, I'd further like your permission to raise arms against you. Would that be ok? Please?"

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, after more than 750 postings, not one person here can find the passage in the US Constitution or in the US Legal Code that proves that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, as Ted Cruz lyingly said, is "ultimate check against tryanny", which of course means armed insurrection.

Lots of screaming and moaning and groaning, but not one cogent argument based on actual fact.

I have provided the exact text of the 2nd Amendment more than once. It's there for all to see.

So, can ANYONE find the passage in the US Constitution that allows for armed insurrection? That makes armed insurrection somehow a right?

How about Federal Law? Any luck there?

Otherwise, it is then clear that Ted Cruz is full of shit when he says that the 2nd Amendment is there as the "ultimate check against tyranny". In fact, there are laws on the books AGAINST armed insurrection.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wait, are you a strict constitutionalist, or not?

That question might serve a purpose in a rational discussion, but since you appear not to grasp the meaning of the various terms involved, it seems silly to digress like that.

Get back to your homework assignment.

While you're at it try to contemplate if one is able to properly or adequately grasp the import of the words used in the Constitution outside of their meaning at the time the constitutional provisions were drafted.

So, are are still evading. Where exactly in the US Constitution are the people given the right to shoot the government?

Hint: there is a clause that allows the Government to put down armed insurrection. That clause IS in the US Constitution...

For a guy trying so hard to duck the hard topics, you are mighty quick at claiming that others "are are" engaged in evading.

Again, your "question" is valueless as you knew when you tried that deflection the last time. First of all, I haven't advocated that anybody has a "right" to shoot the government.

Secondly, to the extent that the people have a 2d Amendment guaranteed right to bear arms, one of the original purposes of which was to serve as a check against a tyrannical exercise by the government of unauthorized powers, that PURPOSE need not be part of the written text. Are you actually suggesting that the constitution is entirely textual in scope and if it aint written no such "right" or purpose exists?

That's a mighty odd suggestion coming from a lib.

Thirdly, l the authority of the GOVERNMENT to put down an armed insurrection has nothing to do with the purpose for the Second Amendment. You are confusing and conflating your arguments there, Skippy. Even those who recognize that ONE of the PURPOSES for the 2d Amendment is the possibility of checking the central government from acting tyrannically wouldn't have difficulty in acknowledging that any GOVERNMENT worth its salt also has to have legitimate and needed power to put down an illicit insurrection.

The former is not antithetical to -- nor even at odds with -- the latter.

You see, this is where your argument fails, miserably.

I strongly SUPPORT the second amendment, and I have owned a gun. Am a pretty good shot, too.

So, let's look at the exact wording of the 2nd amendment:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


That's it. That's the second amendment. Everything beyond that is interpretation, also based on case law.

The specific reason given was that we needed a "well regulated militia" because it was/is "necessary to the security of a free state".


Since the Constitution was written for the United States of America, the obvious assumption is that "state" means the USA in this case.

There is no clause in the 2nd amendment that supports armed insurrection, which is EXACTLY what Ted Cruz is alluding to.

However, there IS a clause in the US Constution about insurrections themselves:

Article I, Section VIII (8):

"Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


Please see the bolded, in green.


Also, there is the Insurrection Act, which is a law and has been law now for more than 200 years:

Insurrection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the ability of the President of the United States to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in10 U.S.C.§§ 331–335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed...

...Amendments of 2006[edit]

On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill(repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."

The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]

The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Please see the bolded, in green, in the text above.

So, you see, while you keep supporting something you cannot backup with actual law, I can support my argument.

Must really suck to be you.

Unlike you, I did support my argument and what I posted makes sense. You are merely babbling.

You keep noting that the Federal Government has passed laws forbidding insurrection. Wow. What a surprise. I was just SURE that they'd invite it.

You have shown NOTHING.

The entire POINT, you dolt, is that if they transgress the bounds of the Constitution and engage in tyranny the right of the People to keep and bear arms ALREADY means that the people are in a position to contest the tyranny. No further "permission" is required and none would EVER be expected.

The real mystery here is why you think that any would be required or that it would even be anticipated.

A government of limited authority and powers which nevertheless chooses to break those rules is hardly about to then permit armed opposition. ( A perfectly legitimate government wouldn't either, but an illegitimate tyrannical government certainly wouldn't.) Thankfully, no permission would be required. Because that was a done deal when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were RATIFIED.

Speaking of really sucking, and as much as I generally avoid discussing your life style, let's imagine that your beloved all powerful Federal government took a hard turn toward the elimination of gay rights and gays. But the law doesn't grant you "permission" to oppose them anymore. What would you do?

Petition them nicely for a redress of grievances? "Please, sirs and madams, I'd very much like your permission to rally against you and your misbegotten bigoted laws and if you refuse to alter your policies, I'd further like your permission to raise arms against you. Would that be ok? Please?"

You just lied.

I have provided more than one actual text from the US Constitution and Federal Law.

You have provided nothing but lots of grunting, wierd ad homs and lots of hot air.

 

[rightwinger]

Small government is a myth in trying to claim it can support an economic ...

LOL, government is a blood sucker to the economy, it supports nothing, it's a parasite for most of the things it does and for the things worthwhile it does to it removes the means to do it from the economy. LOL, the government "support"s the economy. Wow. They seriously need to start kids on econ in school. That's just sad

and military superpower

Excellent, best way to control you neocons is to reduce the size of the military.

You forgot your favorite part of government, wealth redistribution. You know, why you run to the mailbox every morning?

No modern society can function without a government. Your "Gubmint is the enemy" rant is worthy of the 18th century

 

[rightwinger]

So, after more than 750 postings, not one person here can find the passage in the US Constitution or in the US Legal Code that proves that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, as Ted Cruz lyingly said, is "ultimate check against tryanny", which of course means armed insurrection.

Lots of screaming and moaning and groaning, but not one cogent argument based on actual fact.

I have provided the exact text of the 2nd Amendment more than once. It's there for all to see.

So, can ANYONE find the passage in the US Constitution that allows for armed insurrection? That makes armed insurrection somehow a right?

How about Federal Law? Any luck there?

Otherwise, it is then clear that Ted Cruz is full of shit when he says that the 2nd Amendment is there as the "ultimate check against tyranny". In fact, there are laws on the books AGAINST armed insurrection.

If the founders found armed insurrection necessary, they could have included it in the constitution

Instead, they put in things like freedom of speech, free press, the vote.....What a bunch of fucking liberals

 

[kaz]

So, after more than 750 postings, not one person here can find the passage in the US Constitution or in the US Legal Code that proves that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, as Ted Cruz lyingly said, is "ultimate check against tryanny", which of course means armed insurrection

Yes, you got us. They didn't authorize opposing their government in the government documents they wrote, they just put it in their other writings to do it if their government became oppressive. Even though they were writing the documents stating the role and limits of government, they recognized the inherent corruption of government, even the one they created

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I don't know how to dumb things down to such a low level that you might have a chance of finally getting it.

I will TELL you yet AGAIN. The purposes for the 2d Amendment were known to the folks who authored it and to those who sought the ratification of the Bill of Rights and to those who DEMANDED the Bill of Rights. And I tell you YET again that it makes NOT ONE TINY BIT OF DIFFERENCE no matter how many times you ask your meaningless and utterly pointless questions whether the PURPOSES are spelled out IN the Constitution.

For although you love to duck the questions you can't handle, the fact remains that you are UNABLE to show that the purpose needs to be spelled out in an Amendment in order for that purpose to exist.

and now, I will AGAIN answer you that no law would 'allow' anybody to engage in an insurrection. In fact, quite to the contrary, the laws OF COURSE forbid it and empower the Government to quell them.

Now you should try to answer me. So what? Would anybody expect things to be otherwise? Here's the question:

If -- and to the extent that -- the Federal Government chose to deliberately transgress the bounds of the Constitutionally LIMITED authority and powers it has, and moved illegally to take away (by force, perhaps) the rights and property or lives of the people or any subset of the people, are you suggesting that the PEOPLE would be obligated to behave like fucking sheep and never lift a finger to stop it?

And yet, not one of those mysterious purposes made their way into the Constitution, a document known for it's exactitude in clearly delineating what is and what isn't.

You are talking about individuals' OPINIONS, not that which actually is engraved into the law. If this was such a hot point, then why was it not included in the Constitution, eh?

Once again, you utterly fail to provide evidence for this specific purpose for the 2nd Amendment, namely, to allow people to mount an armed insurrection against the Government.

But there IS a clause in the US Constitution that CLEARLY states that the US Government will put down armed insurrection.

You do understand that, right?

Amazing: it's a law that the 2nd Amendment crowd hangs on to so tightly, however, cannot provide even a smidge of evidence in this case.

Ted Cruz is COMPLETELY WRONG about this point. He is issuing an opinion, one that is not anchored in the actual document upon which our Republic is based.

Your ignorance about this is nothing less than astounding.

Actually, his ignorance is consistent with that of most others on the right – quite expected and unsurprising.

Adam_Clayton_Jones, you abysmally ignorant troll. How the fuck are you?

I know you have nothing of substance or logic or merit to offer.

I realize you are just here to play the role of chorus for those of your ilk who are capable of grunting out SOME "argument" for their ignorant position, even though they are clearly incapable of doing so intelligently or persuasively. But shouldn't you be tending to other pressing concerns?

Maybe there's a thread somewhere where you can complain about all white folk?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The "law" cannot say any such thing since Cruz only pointed out that the creation of the Second Amendment WAS historically for a particular set of purposes. He was and still is entirely right.

Only, as I just pointed out to you very clearly, one and only one purpose is listed in the 2nd amendment for the bearing of arms, and armed insurrection against the Government is NOT the reason listed.

What part of the word "logic" do you not understand?

No,. You didn't point anything out clearly. You offered a facile and erroneous analysis.

You were wrong and you still are.

The PURPOSES buttressing the 2d Amendment were discussed by the various States at the time of the RATIFICATIONs. Your refusal of recognition of historical fact doesn't change history. It just makes you studiously blind to it.

The CONSTITUTION would not have been ratified and we would not BE the United States of America if it were not for the promise of the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights (including the 2d amendment) was INSISTED upon for a whole lot of reasons INCLUDING the desire to place another CHECK on the feared prospect of an overly powerful central government.

The PURPOSES for the 2d Amendment do not have to be listed
for them to exist. Are the Purposes for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association and freedom of religion all explicitly listed? Do you imagine they must be or they cease to exist?

Snap the fuck out of it.

So, now you have gone from not being about to actually quote anything from the Constitution or Federal Law to saying that OPINIONS of individuals from various states "buttress"(ed) the purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

I ask for one final time:

Where EXACTLY in the US CONSTITUTION or in ANY FEDERAL LAW is armed insurrection against the US Government allowed or encouraged? And why is this NOT listed as a reason for the 2nd Amendment.

I give you one FINAL chance to actually prove your point, instead of running and hiding behind opinions of someone so and so to "buttress" the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

LAW and "opinion" are NOT the same thing.

It isn't..In fact the Constitution mentions armed insurrection. As does the US Code
10 U.S. Code 332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority LII Legal Information Institute
This should sum it up for you....
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The US Constitution is a limiting document. Limiting the government. Not the people.
Meaning....WE give permission to the government to do things. We do not permit the government to steamroll us with the use of unreasonable force.
The political left however, in its incredible hypocrisy, resists use of the military for purposes of national security on foreign soil, but will ascend to the use of force on US Citizens. Especially is the force is used to insure compliance with anything that fits THEIR agenda.

Indeed. Neither of the two links you provide empower the people to raise arms against the US Government.
In fact, 332 is there to make sure that the militia can be used to put down such an armed insurrection.

Got anymore unicorns for me, while you are at it?

It was not intent to prove YOUR point.
The fact is the Founders stated very clearly that a well armed militia and the people's right to keep and bear arms was essential to keep government in check and to protect the people against tyrannical government.
If you are unwilling to recognize that fact, then that is YOUR problem.

 

[kaz]

So, after more than 750 postings, not one person here can find the passage in the US Constitution or in the US Legal Code that proves that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, as Ted Cruz lyingly said, is "ultimate check against tryanny", which of course means armed insurrection.

Lots of screaming and moaning and groaning, but not one cogent argument based on actual fact.

I have provided the exact text of the 2nd Amendment more than once. It's there for all to see.

So, can ANYONE find the passage in the US Constitution that allows for armed insurrection? That makes armed insurrection somehow a right?

How about Federal Law? Any luck there?

Otherwise, it is then clear that Ted Cruz is full of shit when he says that the 2nd Amendment is there as the "ultimate check against tyranny". In fact, there are laws on the books AGAINST armed insurrection.

If the founders found armed insurrection necessary, they could have included it in the constitution

Instead, they put in things like freedom of speech, free press, the vote.....What a bunch of fucking liberals

Give us an idea of how they put armed insurrection in the document so it makes sense rather than just telling people if their government became oppressive to oppose it

 

[kaz]

Small government is a myth in trying to claim it can support an economic ...

LOL, government is a blood sucker to the economy, it supports nothing, it's a parasite for most of the things it does and for the things worthwhile it does to it removes the means to do it from the economy. LOL, the government "support"s the economy. Wow. They seriously need to start kids on econ in school. That's just sad

and military superpower

Excellent, best way to control you neocons is to reduce the size of the military.

You forgot your favorite part of government, wealth redistribution. You know, why you run to the mailbox every morning?

No modern society can function without a government. Your "Gubmint is the enemy" rant is worthy of the 18th century

Yes, my choices are Marxism or anarchy, you mentioned that, simpleton. I don't want all government, so I'm an anarchist, and if I accept any government, then I've accepted Marxism.

Every time you repeat that idiocy it becomes more convincing, thanks for that big guy

 

[thereisnospoon]

Only, as I just pointed out to you very clearly, one and only one purpose is listed in the 2nd amendment for the bearing of arms, and armed insurrection against the Government is NOT the reason listed.

What part of the word "logic" do you not understand?

No,. You didn't point anything out clearly. You offered a facile and erroneous analysis.

You were wrong and you still are.

The PURPOSES buttressing the 2d Amendment were discussed by the various States at the time of the RATIFICATIONs. Your refusal of recognition of historical fact doesn't change history. It just makes you studiously blind to it.

The CONSTITUTION would not have been ratified and we would not BE the United States of America if it were not for the promise of the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights (including the 2d amendment) was INSISTED upon for a whole lot of reasons INCLUDING the desire to place another CHECK on the feared prospect of an overly powerful central government.

The PURPOSES for the 2d Amendment do not have to be listed
for them to exist. Are the Purposes for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association and freedom of religion all explicitly listed? Do you imagine they must be or they cease to exist?

Snap the fuck out of it.

So, now you have gone from not being about to actually quote anything from the Constitution or Federal Law to saying that OPINIONS of individuals from various states "buttress"(ed) the purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

I ask for one final time:

Where EXACTLY in the US CONSTITUTION or in ANY FEDERAL LAW is armed insurrection against the US Government allowed or encouraged? And why is this NOT listed as a reason for the 2nd Amendment.

I give you one FINAL chance to actually prove your point, instead of running and hiding behind opinions of someone so and so to "buttress" the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

LAW and "opinion" are NOT the same thing.

It isn't..In fact the Constitution mentions armed insurrection. As does the US Code
10 U.S. Code 332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority LII Legal Information Institute
This should sum it up for you....
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The US Constitution is a limiting document. Limiting the government. Not the people.
Meaning....WE give permission to the government to do things. We do not permit the government to steamroll us with the use of unreasonable force.
The political left however, in its incredible hypocrisy, resists use of the military for purposes of national security on foreign soil, but will ascend to the use of force on US Citizens. Especially is the force is used to insure compliance with anything that fits THEIR agenda.

Indeed. Neither of the two links you provide empower the people to raise arms against the US Government.
In fact, 332 is there to make sure that the militia can be used to put down such an armed insurrection.

Got anymore unicorns for me, while you are at it?

Wow. StatiskalMange has figured out that the government does not pass laws authorizing insurrection.

These friggin lefties....They are so hypocritical. They shriek on and on about "wars"...yet they advocate military action against US Citizens if the need arises to insure anything on the liberal agenda is enforced.
These lefties are obsessed with "compliance"....Especially if it is compliance with Obama's whims.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Small government is a myth in trying to claim it can support an economic ...

LOL, government is a blood sucker to the economy, it supports nothing, it's a parasite for most of the things it does and for the things worthwhile it does to it removes the means to do it from the economy. LOL, the government "support"s the economy. Wow. They seriously need to start kids on econ in school. That's just sad

and military superpower

Excellent, best way to control you neocons is to reduce the size of the military.

You forgot your favorite part of government, wealth redistribution. You know, why you run to the mailbox every morning?

No modern society can function without a government. Your "Gubmint is the enemy" rant is worthy of the 18th century

I am going to go with the argument that the Righties here who are soooo in love with the Ted Cruz false argument that one reason for the 2nd amendment is to shoot the gubbermint are just a bunch of pussies and would piss their pants were they to be called by others to raise their arms and fire on any person, any installation of the US Government.

The very idea that a number of people are practically turned on by the idea of getting to murder people who are part of a Government that they don't always like - the idea is very, very disturbing. I also find it very unpatriotic. But hey, some people are just plain sick in the head. Would you want to have them as neighbors?

So, the logical conclusion is that many, many 2nd-Amendmenters are crazy-assed unpatriotic RWNJs who get hard at the idea of murdering other folks but fortunately for us, are such pussies that they would probably never get their fat asses off the couch to grab their guns, anyway.

And Ted Cruz is not going to get nominated either, because with unpatriotic bullshit like this, the GOP is not likely to go very far.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So, after more than 750 postings, not one person here can find the passage in the US Constitution or in the US Legal Code that proves that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, as Ted Cruz lyingly said, is "ultimate check against tryanny", which of course means armed insurrection.

Lots of screaming and moaning and groaning, but not one cogent argument based on actual fact.

I have provided the exact text of the 2nd Amendment more than once. It's there for all to see.

So, can ANYONE find the passage in the US Constitution that allows for armed insurrection? That makes armed insurrection somehow a right?

How about Federal Law? Any luck there?

Otherwise, it is then clear that Ted Cruz is full of shit when he says that the 2nd Amendment is there as the "ultimate check against tyranny". In fact, there are laws on the books AGAINST armed insurrection.

Why do you persist in asking that dreadfully meaningless inane question?

Why would we expect a passage in the Constitution permitting armed insurrection?

The check is already in place. Assuming that the central government is paying attention, they already KNOw what their bounds are and that the people have a right to bear arms. Thus, they should be alert to the danger of going rogue. The ultimate check on tyranny is already in place and hopefully working.

Why would a government that is being hemmed in then have to have any further verbiage in the Constitution about what might happen if they BREAK the covenant? Presumably, they are already not just on notice but on their best behavior.

What you stupidly, mindlessly and unpersuasively seem to DEMAND is additional Constitutional language that says "but if the Federal Government ever breaks this agreement, then and in that event the People shall HAVE the right to engage in armed insurrection against the government."

You twit. It's not needed because the Constitution isn't drafted to talk about dire consequences for transgressing the terms of the instrument. It already limits the power and it already provides a number of checks INCLUDING the Second Amendment.

 

[kaz]

Small government is a myth in trying to claim it can support an economic ...

LOL, government is a blood sucker to the economy, it supports nothing, it's a parasite for most of the things it does and for the things worthwhile it does to it removes the means to do it from the economy. LOL, the government "support"s the economy. Wow. They seriously need to start kids on econ in school. That's just sad

and military superpower

Excellent, best way to control you neocons is to reduce the size of the military.

You forgot your favorite part of government, wealth redistribution. You know, why you run to the mailbox every morning?

No modern society can function without a government. Your "Gubmint is the enemy" rant is worthy of the 18th century

I am going to go with the argument that the Righties here who are soooo in love with the Ted Cruz false argument that one reason for the 2nd amendment is to shoot the gubbermint are just a bunch of pussies and would piss their pants were they to be called by others to raise their arms and fire on any person, any installation of the US Government.

The very idea that a number of people are practically turned on by the idea of getting to murder people who are part of a Government that they don't always like - the idea is very, very disturbing. I also find it very unpatriotic. But hey, some people are just plain sick in the head. Would you want to have them as neighbors?

So, the logical conclusion is that many, many 2nd-Amendmenters are crazy-assed unpatriotic RWNJs who get hard at the idea of murdering other folks but fortunately for us, are such pussies that they would probably never get their fat asses off the couch to grab their guns anyway.

And Ted Cruz is not going to get nominated either, because with unpatriotic bullshit like this, the GOP is not likely to go very far.

Wow, there are more strawmen in here than in the State of Iowa

 

[Statistikhengst]

No,. You didn't point anything out clearly. You offered a facile and erroneous analysis.

You were wrong and you still are.

The PURPOSES buttressing the 2d Amendment were discussed by the various States at the time of the RATIFICATIONs. Your refusal of recognition of historical fact doesn't change history. It just makes you studiously blind to it.

The CONSTITUTION would not have been ratified and we would not BE the United States of America if it were not for the promise of the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights (including the 2d amendment) was INSISTED upon for a whole lot of reasons INCLUDING the desire to place another CHECK on the feared prospect of an overly powerful central government.

The PURPOSES for the 2d Amendment do not have to be listed
for them to exist. Are the Purposes for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association and freedom of religion all explicitly listed? Do you imagine they must be or they cease to exist?

Snap the fuck out of it.

So, now you have gone from not being about to actually quote anything from the Constitution or Federal Law to saying that OPINIONS of individuals from various states "buttress"(ed) the purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

I ask for one final time:

Where EXACTLY in the US CONSTITUTION or in ANY FEDERAL LAW is armed insurrection against the US Government allowed or encouraged? And why is this NOT listed as a reason for the 2nd Amendment.

I give you one FINAL chance to actually prove your point, instead of running and hiding behind opinions of someone so and so to "buttress" the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

LAW and "opinion" are NOT the same thing.

It isn't..In fact the Constitution mentions armed insurrection. As does the US Code
10 U.S. Code 332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority LII Legal Information Institute
This should sum it up for you....
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The US Constitution is a limiting document. Limiting the government. Not the people.
Meaning....WE give permission to the government to do things. We do not permit the government to steamroll us with the use of unreasonable force.
The political left however, in its incredible hypocrisy, resists use of the military for purposes of national security on foreign soil, but will ascend to the use of force on US Citizens. Especially is the force is used to insure compliance with anything that fits THEIR agenda.

Indeed. Neither of the two links you provide empower the people to raise arms against the US Government.
In fact, 332 is there to make sure that the militia can be used to put down such an armed insurrection.

Got anymore unicorns for me, while you are at it?

Wow. StatiskalMange has figured out that the government does not pass laws authorizing insurrection.

These friggin lefties....They are so hypocritical. They shriek on and on about "wars"...yet they advocate military action against US Citizens if the need arises to insure anything on the liberal agenda is enforced.
These lefties are obsessed with "compliance"....Especially if it is compliance with Obama's whims.

Only, that is a lie.

No one here has advocated military action against US Citizens. I definitely do not.

I pointed out that the law, however, clearly indicates that the Government will put down armed insurrections. It is IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Which part of the word "CONSTITUTION" do you not understand?

 

[rightwinger]

So, after more than 750 postings, not one person here can find the passage in the US Constitution or in the US Legal Code that proves that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, as Ted Cruz lyingly said, is "ultimate check against tryanny", which of course means armed insurrection.

Lots of screaming and moaning and groaning, but not one cogent argument based on actual fact.

I have provided the exact text of the 2nd Amendment more than once. It's there for all to see.

So, can ANYONE find the passage in the US Constitution that allows for armed insurrection? That makes armed insurrection somehow a right?

How about Federal Law? Any luck there?

Otherwise, it is then clear that Ted Cruz is full of shit when he says that the 2nd Amendment is there as the "ultimate check against tyranny". In fact, there are laws on the books AGAINST armed insurrection.

If the founders found armed insurrection necessary, they could have included it in the constitution

Instead, they put in things like freedom of speech, free press, the vote.....What a bunch of fucking liberals

Give us an idea of how they put armed insurrection in the document so it makes sense rather than just telling people if their government became oppressive to oppose it

Let's see..

They could have arranged for militias with the sole purpose to have a force the equivalent of our federal forces. That would allow armed insurrection

Instead, they gave us a free press, freedom of speech and the vote

Truly wise men

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, after more than 750 postings, not one person here can find the passage in the US Constitution or in the US Legal Code that proves that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment, as Ted Cruz lyingly said, is "ultimate check against tryanny", which of course means armed insurrection.

Lots of screaming and moaning and groaning, but not one cogent argument based on actual fact.

I have provided the exact text of the 2nd Amendment more than once. It's there for all to see.

So, can ANYONE find the passage in the US Constitution that allows for armed insurrection? That makes armed insurrection somehow a right?

How about Federal Law? Any luck there?

Otherwise, it is then clear that Ted Cruz is full of shit when he says that the 2nd Amendment is there as the "ultimate check against tyranny". In fact, there are laws on the books AGAINST armed insurrection.

Why do you persist in asking that dreadfully meaningless inane question?

Why would we expect a passage in the Constitution permitting armed insurrection?

The check is already in place. Assuming that the central government is paying attention, they already KNOw what their bounds are and that the people have a right to bear arms. Thus, they should be alert to the danger of going rogue. The ultimate check on tyranny is already in place and hopefully working.

Why would a government that is being hemmed in then have to have any further verbiage in the Constitution about what might happen if they BREAK the covenant? Presumably, they are already not just on notice but on their best behavior.

What you stupidly, mindlessly and unpersuasively seem to DEMAND is additional Constitutional language that says "but if the Federal Government ever breaks this agreement, then and in that event the People shall HAVE the right to engage in armed insurrection against the government."

You twit. It's not needed because the Constitution isn't drafted to talk about dire consequences for transgressing the terms of the instrument. It already limits the power and it already provides a number of checks INCLUDING the Second Amendment.

The "check" is not based on armed resurrection. It is based on the ballot box. Try it, you'll like it.