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

[ralfy]

Time after time we have relied on our first amendment and it hasn't failed us yet

The NSA is here to stay, the fourth amendment is dead, and the first amendment has failed to protect it. What are you going to do?

Indeed. If any, the Second, which essentially led to mandatory national service, is part of a system of control in exchange for consumer spending and easy credit.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, the guns are there to PREVENT the abuse of government power. You know how progressives use the power of government against people they don't like... That sort of thing.

Got any actual credible examples where that actually happened?

ABSOLUTELY! Glad you asked!

. Warrantless Wiretapping

Torture, Kidnapping and Detention

The Growing Surveillance Society

Abuse of the Patriot Act

Government Secrecy

Real ID

No Fly and Selectee Lists

Political Spying

Abuse of Material Witness Statute

Attacks on Academic Freedom



Top Ten Abuses of Power Since 9 11 American Civil Liberties Union

All of the above began under the Bush jr administration so thanks for admitting that you were wrong when you falsely blamed "progressives" and also wrong about "guns preventing the abuse of power" in those instances. As I recall it was the gun fetishists who were supporting the Bush administration on every single one of those abuses.

And they have been continued under the present admin you silly person. That's how tyranny begins. Are you so ignorant of history that you don't know that laws enacted under the Weimar Republic were perverted and corrupted under the Nazi regime. Truly are you that fucking ignorant that you simply don't understand how autocracies start? Really?

Get a fucking clue dude. You're WAYYY out of your depth here.

Resorting to puerile vulgarities is a de facto admission of failure on your part.

You used ad homs because you couldn't defend your ludicrous claim about guns preventing the abuse of power". You also could not refute the fact that gun fetishists supported those abuses of power.

Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The second amendment has never protected a single American against tyranny

Our first amendment is the one that protects us

Yeah, only the first enjoys the TEETH of the 2nd. Funny how you always forget that. Take away the 2nd and all the rest fall too.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Other civilized nations without the equivalent of the 2A are not having any problem losing their civil rights to this mythical "tyranny".

 

[rightwinger]

No, the guns are there to PREVENT the abuse of government power. You know how progressives use the power of government against people they don't like... That sort of thing.

Got any actual credible examples where that actually happened?

Battle of Athens, 1946, over 1000 WWII Veterans opened fire on a corrupt police department protecting the Democratic Machine's Election Fraud.

Bundy Ranch, 2014, hundreds of patriots had a stand off against the federal BLM agents protecting the son of Democratic Senator Harry Reid's robber baron land grab.

Two failures of armed citizens ignoring the first amendment freedoms and constitutional vote

Just because they got away with it didn't make it. necessary

 

[rightwinger]

Time after time we have relied on our first amendment and it hasn't failed us yet

The NSA is here to stay, the fourth amendment is dead, and the first amendment has failed to protect it. What are you going to do?

So is the CIA, FBI, DEA

Our fourth amendment as well as the first are as strong as ever

We have more first amendment rights than any point in history

 

[mikegriffith1]

A few points:

* The founders' main concern was not the British government--it was the federal government. Their fear that one day the federal government might become tyrannical was based on their experience with the British government and on their reading of history.

* The founders made it clear that the right to own firearms was an individual right, not a collective one to be used only in certain cases.

* Liberals here don't seem to understand why The Federalist Papers were written. They were written to explain what the Constitution meant and to persuade the people to support ratifying it. So it's a bit silly to point out that the statements from The Federalist Papers "didn't make it into the Constitution." Well, of course they didn't, because they were written to explain what various articles of the Constitution meant!

* Other founding-era statements likewise make it clear that Cruz is right about the 2nd Amendment. William Rawle, George Tucker, and Joseph Story were three of the great legal giants of the founding era, and all three indisputably support Cruz's observation. (FYI, Story grew up during the War of Independence and knew several of the founding fathers; indeed, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison.)

* The "militia" referred to every citizen who was able to fight. And, as one of the articles I linked showed, the verbiage about the militia was merely preamble language anyway. The heart of the amendment was that the government could not "infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

* It is an odd, rather chilling argument to say that the 2nd Amendment is now pointless because private citizens don't have things like artillery, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombers, etc. Armed citizens could storm weapons depots and acquire some heavy weaponry. Many soldiers would not obey orders to fire on their fellow citizens. Even in Russia, when push came to shove many Russian military units simply refused to obey orders to fire on Russian citizens. So an armed citizenry would at least have a fighting chance to resist government totalitarianism.

* Ted Cruz is not calling for "resorting to armed insurrection instead of solving problems through the political process." That's just dishonest nonsense. He is saying that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the people with the means to resist government tyranny as a last resort, after all peaceful means have failed. Simply pointing out that fact of history is hardly a call for armed rebellion. (By the way, the Patriots did not view themselves as "rebels"; in fact, they disliked that term. They believed they were merely defending their God-given rights.)

* The Declaration of Independence states that the people have the God-given right to throw off an oppressive government if it has gotten to the point that it is turning into a tyranny. The Declaration was written to explain to the world why the colonies were willing to wage war to secede from England.

 

[Derideo_Te]

God-given right

Where in your Bible does your God give you any 2A rights? Does your God grant you freedom of/from religion? Does he grant you the right of free speech?

"God-given rights" is fallacious appeal to a nonexistent "higher authority". Your rights are legislated into the Constitution and if you attempt to violently overthrow the Constitutionally elected government of We the People you automatically forfeit those rights by doing so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet again, there is nothing in Second Amendment literature during the Foundation Era or since that justifies or supports the notion that the intent of the Amendment was to 'authorize' an 'armed rebellion' by the people against a Federal government perceived to be 'tyrannical.'

“The history of the 2nd Amendment is complex and often contradictory. It is dangerous, however, to romanticize the ideas regarding the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. When the 2nd Amendment is romanticized, it takes on a purpose never realized by history. The 2nd Amendment is very much tied to a militia system that, for all intent and purposes, no longer exists. Although some states still maintain a separate defense force under control of the governor, militias as they existed were replaced by the National Guard in 1903. Does this render the 2nd Amendment obsolete? The right to bear arms is still guaranteed in most state constitutions. In addition, the District of Columbia v. Heller decision of 2008 made it clear that the right to own firearms is guaranteed, even if unconnected to militia service. (21) This does not negate, however, the power of the government to regulate firearms. The government regularly passed restrictions on firearms throughout the first century of existence and state militias were at the forefront throughout our history of not only enforcing those regulations, but also of protecting state power. The 2nd Amendment gave the states and the federal government the authority to put down rebellions and disarm those populations it feared the most. As it played out in history, the 2nd Amendment became the means to protect state power, not a means by which the people could dispose of it.”

Article Protection from Tyranny The Second Amendment as a Means to Protect the State Not Overthrow It OpEdNews

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

MIKEGRIFFITH1 SAID:

"Ted Cruz is not calling for "resorting to armed insurrection instead of solving problems through the political process." That's just dishonest nonsense. He is saying that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the people with the means to resist government tyranny as a last resort, after all peaceful means have failed."

And Cruz would still be wrong.

The Amendment in no way 'authorizes' the people to 'resist government tyranny' through force of arms – as a first or 'last' resort; there exists no sanctioned, promulgated criteria as to what constitutes 'tyranny,' there exists no provision acknowledging the demarcation as to when all other measures have been exhausted warranting 'armed resistance' against the Federal government.

Absent a clear, codified consensus as to what constitutes 'tyranny,' absent a process by which the people have exhausted all other resources in response to perceived government excess, the argument that the Second Amendment's intent is to act as a check on government overreach is devoid of merit and fails accordingly.

 

[Antares]

And yet again, there is nothing in Second Amendment literature during the Foundation Era or since that justifies or supports the notion that the intent of the Amendment was to 'authorize' an 'armed rebellion' by the people against a Federal government perceived to be 'tyrannical.'

“The history of the 2nd Amendment is complex and often contradictory. It is dangerous, however, to romanticize the ideas regarding the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. When the 2nd Amendment is romanticized, it takes on a purpose never realized by history. The 2nd Amendment is very much tied to a militia system that, for all intent and purposes, no longer exists. Although some states still maintain a separate defense force under control of the governor, militias as they existed were replaced by the National Guard in 1903. Does this render the 2nd Amendment obsolete? The right to bear arms is still guaranteed in most state constitutions. In addition, the District of Columbia v. Heller decision of 2008 made it clear that the right to own firearms is guaranteed, even if unconnected to militia service. (21) This does not negate, however, the power of the government to regulate firearms. The government regularly passed restrictions on firearms throughout the first century of existence and state militias were at the forefront throughout our history of not only enforcing those regulations, but also of protecting state power. The 2nd Amendment gave the states and the federal government the authority to put down rebellions and disarm those populations it feared the most. As it played out in history, the 2nd Amendment became the means to protect state power, not a means by which the people could dispose of it.”

Article Protection from Tyranny The Second Amendment as a Means to Protect the State Not Overthrow It OpEdNews

A Progressive Article, no dice kid....sorry.

 

[Antares]

MIKEGRIFFITH1 SAID:

"Ted Cruz is not calling for "resorting to armed insurrection instead of solving problems through the political process." That's just dishonest nonsense. He is saying that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the people with the means to resist government tyranny as a last resort, after all peaceful means have failed."

And Cruz would still be wrong.

The Amendment in no way 'authorizes' the people to 'resist government tyranny' through force of arms – as a first or 'last' resort; there exists no sanctioned, promulgated criteria as to what constitutes 'tyranny,' there exists no provision acknowledging the demarcation as to when all other measures have been exhausted warranting 'armed resistance' against the Federal government.

Absent a clear, codified consensus as to what constitutes 'tyranny,' absent a process by which the people have exhausted all other resources in response to perceived government excess, the argument that the Second Amendment's intent is to act as a check on government overreach is devoid of merit and fails accordingly.

Authorize is your word,nobody else's.

You are one dishonest Lefty kid....nobody needs " authorization" to resist tyranny.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, the guns are there to PREVENT the abuse of government power. You know how progressives use the power of government against people they don't like... That sort of thing.

Got any actual credible examples where that actually happened?

ABSOLUTELY! Glad you asked!

. Warrantless Wiretapping

Torture, Kidnapping and Detention

The Growing Surveillance Society

Abuse of the Patriot Act

Government Secrecy

Real ID

No Fly and Selectee Lists

Political Spying

Abuse of Material Witness Statute

Attacks on Academic Freedom



Top Ten Abuses of Power Since 9 11 American Civil Liberties Union

All of the above began under the Bush jr administration so thanks for admitting that you were wrong when you falsely blamed "progressives" and also wrong about "guns preventing the abuse of power" in those instances. As I recall it was the gun fetishists who were supporting the Bush administration on every single one of those abuses.

And they have been continued under the present admin you silly person. That's how tyranny begins. Are you so ignorant of history that you don't know that laws enacted under the Weimar Republic were perverted and corrupted under the Nazi regime. Truly are you that fucking ignorant that you simply don't understand how autocracies start? Really?

Get a fucking clue dude. You're WAYYY out of your depth here.

Resorting to puerile vulgarities is a de facto admission of failure on your part.

You used ad homs because you couldn't defend your ludicrous claim about guns preventing the abuse of power". You also could not refute the fact that gun fetishists supported those abuses of power.

Have a nice day.

ROFLMNAO! What a LOVELY Concession.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The second amendment has never protected a single American against tyranny

Our first amendment is the one that protects us

Yeah, only the first enjoys the TEETH of the 2nd. Funny how you always forget that. Take away the 2nd and all the rest fall too.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Other civilized nations without the equivalent of the 2A are not having any problem losing their civil rights to this mythical "tyranny".

Actually both Amendments are in evidence... as they are respectively represented... and you're appeal to popularity is an invalid logical construct, which in no way so much as challenges the evidence.

As a consequence of your unsound reasoning, you have conceded to the validity from which you have yielded, through your failure to adequately contest such.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Antares]

And yet again, there is nothing in Second Amendment literature during the Foundation Era or since that justifies or supports the notion that the intent of the Amendment was to 'authorize' an 'armed rebellion' by the people against a Federal government perceived to be 'tyrannical.'

“The history of the 2nd Amendment is complex and often contradictory. It is dangerous, however, to romanticize the ideas regarding the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. When the 2nd Amendment is romanticized, it takes on a purpose never realized by history. The 2nd Amendment is very much tied to a militia system that, for all intent and purposes, no longer exists. Although some states still maintain a separate defense force under control of the governor, militias as they existed were replaced by the National Guard in 1903. Does this render the 2nd Amendment obsolete? The right to bear arms is still guaranteed in most state constitutions. In addition, the District of Columbia v. Heller decision of 2008 made it clear that the right to own firearms is guaranteed, even if unconnected to militia service. (21) This does not negate, however, the power of the government to regulate firearms. The government regularly passed restrictions on firearms throughout the first century of existence and state militias were at the forefront throughout our history of not only enforcing those regulations, but also of protecting state power. The 2nd Amendment gave the states and the federal government the authority to put down rebellions and disarm those populations it feared the most. As it played out in history, the 2nd Amendment became the means to protect state power, not a means by which the people could dispose of it.”

Article Protection from Tyranny The Second Amendment as a Means to Protect the State Not Overthrow It OpEdNews

One has to laugh at this being put forth as a "source".

"Open-Tough-Progressive".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

MIKEGRIFFITH1 SAID:

"Ted Cruz is not calling for "resorting to armed insurrection instead of solving problems through the political process." That's just dishonest nonsense. He is saying that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the people with the means to resist government tyranny as a last resort, after all peaceful means have failed."

And Cruz would still be wrong.

The Amendment in no way 'authorizes' the people to 'resist government tyranny' through force of arms – as a first or 'last' resort; there exists no sanctioned, promulgated criteria as to what constitutes 'tyranny,' there exists no provision acknowledging the demarcation as to when all other measures have been exhausted warranting 'armed resistance' against the Federal government.

Absent a clear, codified consensus as to what constitutes 'tyranny,' absent a process by which the people have exhausted all other resources in response to perceived government excess, the argument that the Second Amendment's intent is to act as a check on government overreach is devoid of merit and fails accordingly.

Nature; which is to say God endowed man with the self-evident RIGHTS... and it is that ENDOWMENT which AUTHORIZES MAN TO RESIST TYRANY.

LOL! Of course, as a mouthy British subject; thus a human creature existing below the human intellectual standard, OKA: Sub-human... posing as a US Citizen... THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A few points:

* The founders' main concern was not the British government--it was the federal government. Their fear that one day the federal government might become tyrannical was based on their experience with the British government and on their reading of history.

* The founders made it clear that the right to own firearms was an individual right, not a collective one to be used only in certain cases.

* Liberals here don't seem to understand why The Federalist Papers were written. They were written to explain what the Constitution meant and to persuade the people to support ratifying it. So it's a bit silly to point out that the statements from The Federalist Papers "didn't make it into the Constitution." Well, of course they didn't, because they were written to explain what various articles of the Constitution meant!

* Other founding-era statements likewise make it clear that Cruz is right about the 2nd Amendment. William Rawle, George Tucker, and Joseph Story were three of the great legal giants of the founding era, and all three indisputably support Cruz's observation. (FYI, Story grew up during the War of Independence and knew several of the founding fathers; indeed, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison.)

* The "militia" referred to every citizen who was able to fight. And, as one of the articles I linked showed, the verbiage about the militia was merely preamble language anyway. The heart of the amendment was that the government could not "infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

* It is an odd, rather chilling argument to say that the 2nd Amendment is now pointless because private citizens don't have things like artillery, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombers, etc. Armed citizens could storm weapons depots and acquire some heavy weaponry. Many soldiers would not obey orders to fire on their fellow citizens. Even in Russia, when push came to shove many Russian military units simply refused to obey orders to fire on Russian citizens. So an armed citizenry would at least have a fighting chance to resist government totalitarianism.

* Ted Cruz is not calling for "resorting to armed insurrection instead of solving problems through the political process." That's just dishonest nonsense. He is saying that the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the people with the means to resist government tyranny as a last resort, after all peaceful means have failed. Simply pointing out that fact of history is hardly a call for armed rebellion. (By the way, the Patriots did not view themselves as "rebels"; in fact, they disliked that term. They believed they were merely defending their God-given rights.)

* The Declaration of Independence states that the people have the God-given right to throw off an oppressive government if it has gotten to the point that it is turning into a tyranny. The Declaration was written to explain to the world why the colonies were willing to wage war to secede from England.

Thank you, that is well said.

What the evil to which you direct your reasoning is incapable of understanding is that the United States has been 'At War' with a cult of individuals, who possess ZERO Aircraft, virtually no heavy Armament... possessing primarily small arms and despite that the US Government has had no means to defeat it.

Yet, here they sit... typing away in the foolishness wherein THEY 'believe' that THEY represent the US Military... which THEY SPENT A DECADE PROTESTING AGAINST... and that THEY'RE FALSE POSSESSION OF THE US MILITARY cannot be contested by Armed insurgencies.

They truly represent an abyss of idiocy.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The second amendment has never protected a single American against tyranny

Our first amendment is the one that protects us

Yeah, only the first enjoys the TEETH of the 2nd. Funny how you always forget that. Take away the 2nd and all the rest fall too.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Other civilized nations without the equivalent of the 2A are not having any problem losing their civil rights to this mythical "tyranny".

This man hasn't seen people going to jail for criticizing Islam and feminists in Canada and foreign countries.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The second amendment has never protected a single American against tyranny

Our first amendment is the one that protects us

Yeah, only the first enjoys the TEETH of the 2nd. Funny how you always forget that. Take away the 2nd and all the rest fall too.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Other civilized nations without the equivalent of the 2A are not having any problem losing their civil rights to this mythical "tyranny".

This man hasn't seen people going to jail for criticizing Islam and feminists in Canada and foreign countries.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why would anyone in their right mind believe that an American Dictator would be different from any other dictator?