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

[kaz]

The guy wants us to live in the 18th century. He will defund infrastructure, defund science and have us joining the isis.

I have a question for you regarding this hang up you have on "science" ( Whatever the hell that means)...
Ready?
Why is it you look to government to fund what you refer to as "science"?.....DO you have a problem with the private sector doing so?
Now, define "science". As it applies to your seemingly obsessive dwelling on science.
And do not respond to my question with a question. Doing that will get you nowhere.

Why do you say that?

 

[Nutz]

I have independently researched the tea party...been to a rally which was nothing more than a recruitment effort for a couple of different white supremacist groups. On paper, yest Tea Party principles look good...so does the KKK charter...but in the end...they don't practice what they preach. Teapers are racist hypocrites who have offered nothing to America other than hate and vitriol and violence. Hell...these asshole terrorists threaten to use women as human shields in a standoff with LEO.

Nonsense. You don't imagine that anybody believes you, do you?

I don';t buy for a moment that a twit like you has ever been interested in being a Conservative. And I don't believe you when you claim to have gone to any Tea Party rally.

The reality is that if you DID give a shit about trying to know anything about the Tea Party movement, you'd realize that their goal is fundamentally conservative and that means that they are quite clear in disavowing racism.

America s Heroes Through the Ages Tea Party Army - Working to Restore Faith In America

I have never associated myself with the Tea Party. But when dishonest hack bitches like you try so hard to invalidly smear them, and I make a point of taking a third look, I see that I might now have to take a closer look. They are worthy of support.

No, they aren't worth of support. They are racist, seditious assholes who have done nothing but obstruct, threaten violence ad stoke the fire of racial animosity. You should do some HONEST research. Start by looking up the teaper army and go from there.

No you are wrong and quite probably dishonest. At a minimum you are a willing tool of the disinformation to which you have been subjected by the likes of Soros et al.

Seems to me you are afrad of the truth. I can read an articlw created by the KKK and it wll sound good! Teapers are so gullible.

No you can't. And if it sounds good, it only sounds good to complete filthy asshole motherfuckers such as you.

Gullible teapers and their hate mission. So pathetic. I wonder if you are brainwashed or part of the problem...lyng about the motives of the tea party to recruit more hooded members.

 

[francoHFW]

Teapers are so funny...they know nothing about their group...the teaper army, the teaper hate, and the teaper plans for a race war. You should research what you support.

Actually, the one who should do the research is you, you idiot. You are simply lapping up the spoon fed bullshit being offered to you by the morons on the far left.

You don't question it because you don't have the ability to discern the difference between the tings you are told and reality.

You truly are just that dumb. It's sad. If you had any actual handle on the meaning of true conservative political philosophy (you don't), even a flaming moron like you might be able to glean the fact that actual Tea Party principles embrace TRUE conservatism. But you don't have the slightest clue on the respective meanings of conservatism or Tea Party.

You are a joke.

I have independently researched the tea party...been to a rally which was nothing more than a recruitment effort for a couple of different white supremacist groups. On paper, yest Tea Party principles look good...so does the KKK charter...but in the end...they don't practice what they preach. Teapers are racist hypocrites who have offered nothing to America other than hate and vitriol and violence. Hell...these asshole terrorists threaten to use women as human shields in a standoff with LEO.

Nonsense. You don't imagine that anybody believes you, do you?

I don';t buy for a moment that a twit like you has ever been interested in being a Conservative. And I don't believe you when you claim to have gone to any Tea Party rally.

The reality is that if you DID give a shit about trying to know anything about the Tea Party movement, you'd realize that their goal is fundamentally conservative and that means that they are quite clear in disavowing racism.

America s Heroes Through the Ages Tea Party Army - Working to Restore Faith In America

I have never associated myself with the Tea Party. But when dishonest hack bitches like you try so hard to invalidly smear them, and I make a point of taking a third look, I see that I might now have to take a closer look. They are worthy of support.

No, they aren't worth of support. They are racist, seditious assholes who have done nothing but obstruct, threaten violence ad stoke the fire of racial animosity. You should do some HONEST research. Start by looking up the teaper army and go from there.

No you are wrong and quite probably dishonest. At a minimum you are a willing tool of the disinformation to which you have been subjected by the likes of Soros et al.

Listen, hater dupe, and btw Soros is not a Nazi lol, Soros gives money to fact checkers on the tidal wave of bs Pub Propaganda (ONLY Pubs have their own giant propaganda machine of total BULLSHYTTE- Dems depend on a cowardly corporate media and actual journalists), that's a full time job. Trying to equate Media Matters with Fox, Rush, Savage, Heritage etc etc etc is ridiculous.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

America s Heroes Through the Ages Tea Party Army - Working to Restore Faith In America

Assholes like nutzie ought to try reading for comprehension.

That "Attucks" link features -- at the Tea Party Army site -- two prominent black Americans from American history.

I see you have started your research about the teaper army (which you claimed ddn't exst). Look harder and deeper...there is more. Learn about the hate group you support. Learn how they eant to kill nigg3rs, rape the etbacks, slaughter the liberals, and castrate the gays by force. Learn their true mission.

Wrong and wrong. I had that article bookmarked already.

What I DENIED was that they have an ARMY. They don't. That was your sub-moronic question. "why do they have or need an army?"

Speaking of gullible, your image could be the one in the dictionary, you ******* cretin.

They don't HAVE an "army."

If Shrillary asks for an ARMY of VOLUNTEERS for her campaign, do idiots like you think that means they will be issued canteens, boots, uniforms and rifles? Let's get back to it. Do you worry late at night that the Salvation "Army" might invade Canada?

I keep telling you and you keep ducking it. There is NOTHING in the literature of the true Tea Party movement -- and not in ANY of their various groups -- that advocates for anything racist. YOU keep making that unsupported claim and YOU will never be able to support it. Why not? Because YOU are simply a lying piece of shit.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Nonsense. You don't imagine that anybody believes you, do you?

I don';t buy for a moment that a twit like you has ever been interested in being a Conservative. And I don't believe you when you claim to have gone to any Tea Party rally.

The reality is that if you DID give a shit about trying to know anything about the Tea Party movement, you'd realize that their goal is fundamentally conservative and that means that they are quite clear in disavowing racism.

America s Heroes Through the Ages Tea Party Army - Working to Restore Faith In America

I have never associated myself with the Tea Party. But when dishonest hack bitches like you try so hard to invalidly smear them, and I make a point of taking a third look, I see that I might now have to take a closer look. They are worthy of support.

No, they aren't worth of support. They are racist, seditious assholes who have done nothing but obstruct, threaten violence ad stoke the fire of racial animosity. You should do some HONEST research. Start by looking up the teaper army and go from there.

No you are wrong and quite probably dishonest. At a minimum you are a willing tool of the disinformation to which you have been subjected by the likes of Soros et al.

Seems to me you are afrad of the truth. I can read an articlw created by the KKK and it wll sound good! Teapers are so gullible.

No you can't. And if it sounds good, it only sounds good to complete filthy asshole motherfuckers such as you.

Gullible teapers and their hate mission. So pathetic. I wonder if you are brainwashed or part of the problem...lyng about the motives of the tea party to recruit more hooded members.

GO ahead, you cock bite. Show me the KKK article you spoke of earlier that sounds good to you.

You have no idea what a diseased asshole shitsucker you have proved yourself to be.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Now you are evading.

There is only one reason given within the text of the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms. Do you know what it is?

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.

 

[Nutz]

America s Heroes Through the Ages Tea Party Army - Working to Restore Faith In America

Assholes like nutzie ought to try reading for comprehension.

That "Attucks" link features -- at the Tea Party Army site -- two prominent black Americans from American history.

I see you have started your research about the teaper army (which you claimed ddn't exst). Look harder and deeper...there is more. Learn about the hate group you support. Learn how they eant to kill nigg3rs, rape the etbacks, slaughter the liberals, and castrate the gays by force. Learn their true mission.

Wrong and wrong. I had that article bookmarked already.

What I DENIED was that they have an ARMY. They don't. That was your sub-moronic question. "why do they have or need an army?"

Speaking of gullible, your image could be the one in the dictionary, you ******* cretin.

They don't HAVE an "army."

If Shrillary asks for an ARMY of VOLUNTEERS for her campaign, do idiots like you think that means they will be issued canteens, boots, uniforms and rifles? Let's get back to it. Do you worry late at night that the Salvation "Army" might invade Canada?

I keep telling you and you keep ducking it. There is NOTHING in the literature of the true Tea Party movement -- and not in ANY of their various groups -- that advocates for anything racist. YOU keep making that unsupported claim and YOU will never be able to support it. Why not? Because YOU are simply a lying piece of shit.

THEY DO HAVE AN ARMY! Of course there is nothing in official teaper propaganda that supports hate. That would be stupid..now wouldn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That was a cool-assed rant.

Now, regardless of the many nasty things that people say about welchers like you, I am always glad to see you here, and I mean that quite sincerely.

Since we are on Calgary Cruz's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, please point me to the text within said amendment that gives people the right to shoot the gubbermint.

So many Righties lie out their asses and evade and oh my, lions and tigers and bears, but I am totally confident that you are going to be honest and actually debate something like an adult.

Thanks!

And again, simpleton hack bitches like you love to start off with that dishonest claim of welshing in the vain hope that it might deflect. It doesn't. It simply reveals your disdain for honesty.

And when you ask me to point to the TEXT with the 2d amendment that gives anybody the "right" to shoot the gubmint, you are either being deliberately obtuse or you might actually be establishing just how ignorant or stupid you are. Which is it?

Show me the text within any Amendment that you have a "right" to privacy.

While you're at it, show me the text within the 4th amendment that says that cops are obligated to READ your "right to remain silent, etc" to you BEFORE they are allowed to question you after an arrest.

I ask, because it APPEARS to be your ignorant belief that unless it is in the TEXT a right does not exist.

Go.

Now you are evading.

There is only one reason given within the text of the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms. Do you know what it is?

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.

There is no mention of exceptions in the 1st Amendment, but we easily conclude there are.

So why is it so hard to conclude that 'shall not be infringed' in the 2nd Amendment can just as easily have exceptions?

 

[Nutz]

No, they aren't worth of support. They are racist, seditious assholes who have done nothing but obstruct, threaten violence ad stoke the fire of racial animosity. You should do some HONEST research. Start by looking up the teaper army and go from there.

No you are wrong and quite probably dishonest. At a minimum you are a willing tool of the disinformation to which you have been subjected by the likes of Soros et al.

Seems to me you are afrad of the truth. I can read an articlw created by the KKK and it wll sound good! Teapers are so gullible.

No you can't. And if it sounds good, it only sounds good to complete filthy asshole motherfuckers such as you.

Gullible teapers and their hate mission. So pathetic. I wonder if you are brainwashed or part of the problem...lyng about the motives of the tea party to recruit more hooded members.

GO ahead, you cock bite. Show me the KKK article you spoke of earlier that sounds good to you.

You have no idea what a diseased asshole shitsucker you have proved yourself to be.

I wonder what army the teapers sent to the Bundy ranch? You know...the army of terrorists that threatened to use women as human shields in their highly organized standoff against LEO.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And again, simpleton hack bitches like you love to start off with that dishonest claim of welshing in the vain hope that it might deflect. It doesn't. It simply reveals your disdain for honesty.

And when you ask me to point to the TEXT with the 2d amendment that gives anybody the "right" to shoot the gubmint, you are either being deliberately obtuse or you might actually be establishing just how ignorant or stupid you are. Which is it?

Show me the text within any Amendment that you have a "right" to privacy.

While you're at it, show me the text within the 4th amendment that says that cops are obligated to READ your "right to remain silent, etc" to you BEFORE they are allowed to question you after an arrest.

I ask, because it APPEARS to be your ignorant belief that unless it is in the TEXT a right does not exist.

Go.

Now you are evading.

There is only one reason given within the text of the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms. Do you know what it is?

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.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

Can you be any more dramatic. The founders put the 2nd in there for the specific reason Cruz mentioned.
This is common knowledge.
Nothing to see here.

I dunno. Are you a drama coach, or a drama queen?

Oh, and BTW, the law says that Ted Cruz is wrong, very, very wrong on this point.

 

[thereisnospoon]

He's absolutely correct. Why do you disagree? There is a reason why Ferguson was a protest that was able to last for several days with only a few clashes with police that involved tear gas and some minor assaults as opposed to resembling the massacre at Tiananmen Square.

In what way is he correct? That armed resurrection against the Government is right, or what?

I'm amazed that anyone cannot distinguish between aremd insurrection and civil disobedience....Is it everyone's contention that if government tells us all to jump off Niagara Falls, we just go ahead and do it without question?
Gee, why have a system of jurisprudence? Why have a US Constitution? Why have status of "citizen"?
We are being beaten down to the point where far too many people have just given up and decided to just bend over.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Actually, the one who should do the research is you, you idiot. You are simply lapping up the spoon fed bullshit being offered to you by the morons on the far left.

You don't question it because you don't have the ability to discern the difference between the tings you are told and reality.

You truly are just that dumb. It's sad. If you had any actual handle on the meaning of true conservative political philosophy (you don't), even a flaming moron like you might be able to glean the fact that actual Tea Party principles embrace TRUE conservatism. But you don't have the slightest clue on the respective meanings of conservatism or Tea Party.

You are a joke.

I have independently researched the tea party...been to a rally which was nothing more than a recruitment effort for a couple of different white supremacist groups. On paper, yest Tea Party principles look good...so does the KKK charter...but in the end...they don't practice what they preach. Teapers are racist hypocrites who have offered nothing to America other than hate and vitriol and violence. Hell...these asshole terrorists threaten to use women as human shields in a standoff with LEO.

Nonsense. You don't imagine that anybody believes you, do you?

I don';t buy for a moment that a twit like you has ever been interested in being a Conservative. And I don't believe you when you claim to have gone to any Tea Party rally.

The reality is that if you DID give a shit about trying to know anything about the Tea Party movement, you'd realize that their goal is fundamentally conservative and that means that they are quite clear in disavowing racism.

America s Heroes Through the Ages Tea Party Army - Working to Restore Faith In America

I have never associated myself with the Tea Party. But when dishonest hack bitches like you try so hard to invalidly smear them, and I make a point of taking a third look, I see that I might now have to take a closer look. They are worthy of support.

No, they aren't worth of support. They are racist, seditious assholes who have done nothing but obstruct, threaten violence ad stoke the fire of racial animosity. You should do some HONEST research. Start by looking up the teaper army and go from there.

No you are wrong and quite probably dishonest. At a minimum you are a willing tool of the disinformation to which you have been subjected by the likes of Soros et al.

Listen, hater dupe, and btw Soros is not a Nazi lol, Soros gives money to fact checkers on the tidal wave of bs Pub Propaganda (ONLY Pubs have their own giant propaganda machine of total BULLSHYTTE- Dems depend on a cowardly corporate media and actual journalists), that's a full time job. Trying to equate Media Matters with Fox, Rush, Savage, Heritage etc etc etc is ridiculous.

Soros is a vermin piece of filth, and you greedily eat the corn out of his shit before he's done shitting it out of his filthy liberal asshole .

He "gives" money to FRAUD "fact" [sic] "checkers" [sic] who distort anything they lay their hands on.

The Lame Stream Media is entirely owned by the left wing Democrap Party, except for Fox News; and the fact that Fox News exists gives you dishonest scumbag propaganda purveyors a rash.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Bet that title got your attention.

It may seem like fiction, but it's not. Ted Cruz just said that.

Ted Cruz 2nd Amendment Is Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny

It's a given that every Republican presidential candidate will run for president as a strong supporter of gun rights.

But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is arguing that the Second Amendment includes a right to revolt against government tyranny, a point of emphasis uncommon for mainstream presidential candidates.

"The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny -- for the protection of liberty," Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line "2nd Amendment against tyranny."

This "insurrectionist" argument, as Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Adam Winkler calls it, is popular among passionate gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association. But major party candidates for president don't often venture there.

"Most presidential candidates who support Second Amendment rights focus on self defense. In the past many have also emphasized hunting," said Winkler, author of the 2011 book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "It's pretty rare for a presidential candidate to support the right of the people to revolt against the government."

Hmmmmm, interesting.

A declared presidential candidate who is for armed insurrection.


Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

Ted Cruz says that this 2nd Amendment remedy is for the protection of Liberty.

I wonder how he would exactly define "Liberty".

Either way, I think he just won the "We came unarmed --- this time" crowd.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss. Is this maybe a bit extreme, or is this the necessary fight against the ebbil ebbil gubbermint?

Can you be any more dramatic. The founders put the 2nd in there for the specific reason Cruz mentioned.
This is common knowledge.
Nothing to see here.

I dunno. Are you a drama coach, or a drama queen?

Oh, and BTW, the law says that Ted Cruz is wrong, very, very wrong on this point.

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.

 

[Statistikhengst]

He's absolutely correct. Why do you disagree? There is a reason why Ferguson was a protest that was able to last for several days with only a few clashes with police that involved tear gas and some minor assaults as opposed to resembling the massacre at Tiananmen Square.

In what way is he correct? That armed resurrection against the Government is right, or what?

I'm amazed that anyone cannot distinguish between aremd insurrection and civil disobedience....Is it everyone's contention that if government tells us all to jump off Niagara Falls, we just go ahead and do it without question?
Gee, why have a system of jurisprudence? Why have a US Constitution? Why have status of "citizen"?
We are being beaten down to the point where far too many people have just given up and decided to just bend over.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

There Is a difference between an armed insurrection and civil disobedience.

One involves taking arms against the government, the other does not.

The 2nd amendment deals only and very specifically with the right to bear arms. If Ted Cruz is only talking about civil disobedience, which is UNARMED, of course, why would he refer to the 2nd amendment?

And furthermore, we don't have a Government that is telling us to jump off the Niagara Falls. Do drama much?

You are right: we DO have a Constitution. You need to read it first before you ***** about a thread.

The point is obvious: what Ted Cruz interprets the 2nd amendment to be, in part, does not jive with the Constitution or with Federal Law.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Now you are evading.

There is only one reason given within the text of the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms. Do you know what it is?

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.

Only VERY ignorant people assume that there are no exceptions to the Right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

And the 1st and the 2nd amendments are NOT written in exactly the same manner, anyway.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I been posting on here for a couple years.. Since I first started, there has been this right wing fantasy of armed rebellion.

What I can't figure out is this; WHAT THE **** IS TAKING YOU RIGHT WING ASSHOLES SO DAMNED LONG TO GET ER DONE?

The gun grabbers are getting stronger as we speak. Their pressure to take your guns is relentless.
Yet all you right wing wannabe revolutionists can do is sit on your asses and *****. Pussies.

Get the **** up and do something about it. Or stfu and admit you all don't have the balls to face the 101rst Airborne.

The only way armed rebellion is going to happen is if the government decides to infringe on our rights to the point there is no other choice but to rebel.
So do you actually believe the 101st Airborne is going to side with an oppressive government?

 

[kaz]

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

No he's not, he's referring to people defending themselves from the State:

Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms"

Your side gets that too

Mao Tse Tung: Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'

 

[IlarMeilyr]

He's absolutely correct. Why do you disagree? There is a reason why Ferguson was a protest that was able to last for several days with only a few clashes with police that involved tear gas and some minor assaults as opposed to resembling the massacre at Tiananmen Square.

In what way is he correct? That armed resurrection against the Government is right, or what?

I'm amazed that anyone cannot distinguish between aremd insurrection and civil disobedience....Is it everyone's contention that if government tells us all to jump off Niagara Falls, we just go ahead and do it without question?
Gee, why have a system of jurisprudence? Why have a US Constitution? Why have status of "citizen"?
We are being beaten down to the point where far too many people have just given up and decided to just bend over.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

There Is a difference between an armed insurrection and civil disobedience.

One involves taking arms against the government, the other does not.

The 2nd amendment deals only and very specifically with the right to bear arms. If Ted Cruz is only talking about civil disobedience, which is UNARMED, of course, why would he refer to the 2nd amendment?

And furthermore, we don't have a Government that is telling us to jump off the Niagara Falls. Do drama much?

You are right: we DO have a Constitution. You need to read it first before you ***** about a thread.

The point is obvious: what Ted Cruz interprets the 2nd amendment to be, in part, does not jive with the Constitution or with Federal Law.

Wrong. What Cruz discussed was simply that the purposes for the 2d amendment involved a check on the prospect of tyranny. You might not like that fact, but a fact is what it was then and remains.

That has exactly NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the fact that a legitimate government ALSO has the power and authority to put down a rebellion.

Indeed, even if the Federal Government drastically transgressed the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution, and proceeded to behave tyrannically, we would EXPECT the government to resort to force to put down any insurrection. And that is exactly the point. They could do so with ease if they had the ability to disarm the people. They would be much harder pressed if the ARMED people fought back.