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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It was an idiotic thing for Cruz to say and designed to get an emotional reaction from ignorant knee jerkers.

Maybe he can get Sharon Angle as his running mate.

Cruz is self aggrandizing egotist who will say anything to pander to the gullible gun fetishists. That they swallowed his BS and defend it tells me that he knows exactly how to manipulate them. His defenders in this thread don't have a clue that he is doing exactly that. Then again they aren't exactly known for rational thinking given their obsession with their penis substitutes.

The always simple minded faux analysis ^ of laughable liberals like Dizzy underscores what their true agenda is.

Such an attack against Cruz for saying something that is actually and demonstrably correct tells a tale. These trite sycophantic liberals are simply trying to get into the GOP nomination game in the hope that they can somehow have an ultimate say in WHICH Republican gets the nod and the chance to go up against Her Thighness.

Go ahead and pick Cruz as your candidate and guarantee that the Dems win the Whitehouse for the next 4 years.

A real smart move on your part.

Anyone sufficiently interested to look, will find that this same would-be 'contributor' said the EXACT SAME THING about Romney ... and McCain.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So why was Tim McVeigh executed for asserting his right to act against what he believed was a tyrannical government?

A Jury of his Peers convicted him for not agreeing with his cause and/or method.

There's a reason the Patriots at Battle of Athens (1946) and Battle of Bundy Ranch (2014) never went to trial --- it's guaranteed that there would always exist sufficient PEERS that would vote to acquit.

Who would acquit McVeigh?

 

[Statistikhengst]

So why was Tim McVeigh executed for asserting his right to act against what he believed was a tyrannical government?

A Jury of his Peers convicted him for not agreeing with his cause and/or method.

There's a reason the Patriots at Battle of Athens (1946) and Battle of Bundy Ranch (2014) never went to trial --- it's guaranteed that there would always exist sufficient PEERS that would vote to acquit.

Who would acquit McVeigh?

You know, with that cool username of yours (which I do like, btw), I was wondering when you would show up...

 

[Pop23]

* * * *

That would be a flattering self portrait if you could be honest, Dizzy.

Alas, you don't seem up to the task of being honest today.

Resorting to ad homs is a tacit admission of defeat on your part.

Have a nice day.

Oh, the irony.

 

[kaz]

Read your own posts

I read my posts and yours. You read neither

STRAWMAN...strawman

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you. Problem is you have to know what they mean, that doesn't even make sense

 

[kaz]

Why do conservatives keep insisting that libs are all poor and on welfare?

Don't give a shit to defend conservatives, why don't you ask one?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you going to a variation of the militia being the National Guard? In the bill of rights they put in a power of government? They wanted to be sure that government could keep it's guns so they made that clear in the Bill of Rights?

And it says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." What about that confuses you?

And freedom of the press shall not be abridged.

Does that protect child pornography?

If you imagine that kiddie porn is either free speech or free press, then you are betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment WAS designed to protect.

It doesn't say that there is any right to exploit children sexually or any right to have glossy photographs of children being sexually exploited (which itself tends to exploit the kids).

No abridgment of a right to a free press simply has nothing at all to do with child porn. Never did.

Liberals don't grasp the concept of a victim. You can't create kiddie porn without it starting with a crime and someone attempting to exploit/profit over a crime

The 1st amendment is written in exactly the same manner as the 2nd, but you, in your idiocy,

cannot comprehend that neither was meant to deny any exceptions.

No, I am arguing they are exactly the same. Neither gives you the right to commit crimes against other people.

You think freedom of speech allows you to strip a kid and film it? And you think that argument makes you clever?

Similarly the second amendment doesn't give you the right to point guns at people to indimidate them regardless of whether you pull the trigger. I am treating them the same.

You are arguing they give you the right to victimize people, it's not clever

You're the one who tried to represent 'shall not be infringed' as a simplistic absolute.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So more to the point,

let's hear from you pro-2nd amendment, anti-'tyranny' types...

...describe a scenario where you could morally justify an armed rebellion against the government of the United States.

 

[2aguy]

So more to the point,

let's hear from you pro-2nd amendment, anti-'tyranny' types...

...describe a scenario where you could morally justify an armed rebellion against the government of the United States.

nazi germany 1940....that's a good one........

Rwandan genocide...1990s another good one....

china....1960s....

Russia, 1930s......

 

[Nutz]

So more to the point,

let's hear from you pro-2nd amendment, anti-'tyranny' types...

...describe a scenario where you could morally justify an armed rebellion against the government of the United States.

let's see....when the government excercses a lawful order against a racist named Bundy...or hen teapers are subjected to the same scrutiny and police brutality as a minority. Or when a white man can't get out of the trailer life...despite generations of unmatched opportunity.

Or...the German hate gene is no longer dormant and their need for hate violence, and blood is too overwhelming.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So more to the point,

let's hear from you pro-2nd amendment, anti-'tyranny' types...

...describe a scenario where you could morally justify an armed rebellion against the government of the United States.

nazi germany 1940....that's a good one........

Rwandan genocide...1990s another good one....

china....1960s....

Russia, 1930s......

Can you read beyond the 8th grade level?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So more to the point,

let's hear from you pro-2nd amendment, anti-'tyranny' types...

...describe a scenario where you could morally justify an armed rebellion against the government of the United States.

Well, that's sorta like the infamous decision on pornography. It's impossible to define... But ya know it when ya see it.

For the Founders it was a 2% tax... .

For some it might be the open rejection of the Constitution, for others it might be the election of another Clinton, for others it might be a combination of 9-11-01, the crash of the financial markets, the printing of tens of trillions of phony dollars, turning control of the Middle East over to evil cultists who they then provide with nuclear warheads... Setting the nation up for an attack that makes 9-11 look like a 4th of July parade... For still others it might be endorsing the destruction of Marriage.

No one knows WHAT you idiots will do that gets your ass kicked. We just know that you have no means to keep yourself from doing it.

Feel better?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So more to the point,

let's hear from you pro-2nd amendment, anti-'tyranny' types...

...describe a scenario where you could morally justify an armed rebellion against the government of the United States.

Well, that's sorta like the infamous decision on pornography. It's impossible to define... But ya know it when ya see it.

For the Founders it was a 2% tax... .

For some it might be the open rejection of the Constitution, for others it might be the election of another Clinton, for others it might be a combination of 9-11-01, the crash of the financial markets, the printing of tens of trillions of phony dollars, turning control of the Middle East over to evil cultists who they then provide with nuclear warheads... Setting the nation up for an attack that makes 9-11 look like a 4th of July parade... For still others it might be endorsing the destruction of Marriage.

No one knows WHAT you idiots will do that gets your ass kicked. We just know that you have no means to keep yourself from doing it.

Feel better?

So if Hillary Clinton is the next president it would be morally justifiable for rightwing nuts like you to start killing Americans.

That is an interesting sentiment to express, especially on April 19th.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So why was Tim McVeigh executed for asserting his right to act against what he believed was a tyrannical government?

A Jury of his Peers convicted him for not agreeing with his cause and/or method.

There's a reason the Patriots at Battle of Athens (1946) and Battle of Bundy Ranch (2014) never went to trial --- it's guaranteed that there would always exist sufficient PEERS that would vote to acquit.

Who would acquit McVeigh?

McVeigh did what you advocate. You would vote to acquit him, unless of course you've been spewing bullshit on this board for many months.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So more to the point,

let's hear from you pro-2nd amendment, anti-'tyranny' types...

...describe a scenario where you could morally justify an armed rebellion against the government of the United States.

Well, that's sorta like the infamous decision on pornography. It's impossible to define... But ya know it when ya see it.

For the Founders it was a 2% tax... .

For some it might be the open rejection of the Constitution, for others it might be the election of another Clinton, for others it might be a combination of 9-11-01, the crash of the financial markets, the printing of tens of trillions of phony dollars, turning control of the Middle East over to evil cultists who they then provide with nuclear warheads... Setting the nation up for an attack that makes 9-11 look like a 4th of July parade... For still others it might be endorsing the destruction of Marriage.

No one knows WHAT you idiots will do that gets your ass kicked. We just know that you have no means to keep yourself from doing it.

Feel better?

So if Hillary Clinton is the next president it would be morally justifiable for rightwing nuts like you to start killing Americans.

That is an interesting sentiment to express, especially on April 19th.

AMERICANS killing Americans?

Lol... You're still confused.

Leftists... Some Americans might see the election of a known subversive to the office of the Presidency as a coup... And as a result they may start killing the Leftists responsible for such.

Understand... Because Nature precluded the means to simultaneously adhere to both the thesis and the antithesis... That makes it a natural impossibility for a Leftist to be an American.

I hope that helps.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So why was Tim McVeigh executed for asserting his right to act against what he believed was a tyrannical government?

A Jury of his Peers convicted him for not agreeing with his cause and/or method.

There's a reason the Patriots at Battle of Athens (1946) and Battle of Bundy Ranch (2014) never went to trial --- it's guaranteed that there would always exist sufficient PEERS that would vote to acquit.

Who would acquit McVeigh?

McVeigh did what you advocate. You would vote to acquit him, unless of course you've been spewing bullshit on this board for many months.

More lies and dam' lies from a dam' liar.

The contributor to whom you refer, has never advocated that innocent people should be murdered in the name of mental deficiency, wherein a non-hackin' Leftist pussy, who couldn't pass the Army's Ranger cut which is among the easiest courses in the US military... Decides to murder children because the government didn't lower standards sufficiently to allow his homosexual ass to become a member of the Rangers.

 

[kaz]

And freedom of the press shall not be abridged.

Does that protect child pornography?

If you imagine that kiddie porn is either free speech or free press, then you are betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment WAS designed to protect.

It doesn't say that there is any right to exploit children sexually or any right to have glossy photographs of children being sexually exploited (which itself tends to exploit the kids).

No abridgment of a right to a free press simply has nothing at all to do with child porn. Never did.

Liberals don't grasp the concept of a victim. You can't create kiddie porn without it starting with a crime and someone attempting to exploit/profit over a crime

The 1st amendment is written in exactly the same manner as the 2nd, but you, in your idiocy,

cannot comprehend that neither was meant to deny any exceptions.

No, I am arguing they are exactly the same. Neither gives you the right to commit crimes against other people.

You think freedom of speech allows you to strip a kid and film it? And you think that argument makes you clever?

Similarly the second amendment doesn't give you the right to point guns at people to indimidate them regardless of whether you pull the trigger. I am treating them the same.

You are arguing they give you the right to victimize people, it's not clever

You're the one who tried to represent 'shall not be infringed' as a simplistic absolute.

Where did I say that? You never stop making up crap, do you?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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?

What part of the construct known as "reality" is the hardest part for you daft nitwits?

(A) The government is acting entirely within the proper and limited bounds of the constitution IN WHICH CASE of course it has the authority to put down an insurrection.

OR

(B) The government has taken a tragic turn and has chosen to act despotically and tyrannically in contravention oft the explicit limits placed on it by the Constitution IN WHICH CASE it has no LEGITIMATE authority to put down an insurrection, but an already lawless government would hardly be expected to concern itself with the illegality of putting down such an insurrection.

EITHER way, it is the government that uses force to quell the insurrection.

There are tons of historical records (including the Federalist Papers) and the papers concerning the ratification, plus the various DEMANDS from the States for the Bill of Rights as a CONDITION for the respective ratifications that show us that the 2d Amendment was crafted to allay concerns about what the States and the citizens could do if the central government acted outside the bounds.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

The preceding quotes can be found at: Bear Arms

So, Ilar, in the case of (B), exactly who gets to decide that the gubbermint "has chosen to act despotically and tyrannically in contravention oft the explicit limits placed on it by the Constitution IN WHICH CASE it has no LEGITIMATE authority to put down an insurrection", as you said it? You? Me? The Tea Party? Hmmmmmm?

Those are some nice quotes you included. They are OPINIONS of specific individuals, and key in showing the mindset of some people, but those opinions are NOT law. They may have been motivating factors for this or that state to ratify, but they are not the law.

In all cases, we get to decide.

This stuff is very difficult for you, isn't it? Probably because you libs worship at the foot of your paternalistic government.

And you ALSO (not surprisingly) entirely MISS the point of the quotes.

No. They were not just opinions; but even if they were, they were of significantly higher value than YOUR oft- repeated but quite groundless vapid opinions.

They WERE the motivation for the ratification of the Constitution and they ARE the law because -- psst -- the Constitution WAS ratified.

That YOU don't like the meaning of the 2d Amendment doesn't change its status as an integral part of the LAW of the land.

Ratification based on that understanding of the what the 2d Amendment served to accomplish informs the law as to what it means and what its purpose is. What do you laughable liberals imagine "the law" is, anyway?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Damn you are stupid. The Right to Bear Arms is ALSO a RIGHT.

Armed insurrection is OBVIOUSLY not listed as a right in the Constitution because NORMALLY there is no such right. The Constitution is designed to tell the Government what it may and may not do. It proceeds on that basis. Where the BASIS is that the mandates are being honored, there would never be a "right" to engage in armed insurrection.

That's not the question, though.

The RIGHT of the people to take charge where the government itself ceases to comply with the law is the question. And nobody is going to add one more word to the Constitution about what our rights are under those dire circumstances BECAUSE the 2d Amendment is already there, in place -- and that covers it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

OT:

Even in StatistikalMange's present graphic sig line, we see Shrillary sticking her cock where nobody wants it.