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

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Only, they don't. The purpose that you listed: "a check on the prospect of tyranny" - is NOT enumerated in the US Constitution, it is NOT enumerated in Federal Law.

Which part of "Constitution" and "Federal Law" do you not understand, Ilar?

Or better yet, please show me the clause in the Constitution that backs up your claim.

We can wait. Have fun hunting for it.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Sure. lol. You are the definition of hater dupe, functional moron. Everyone in the world EXCEPT the 20% ignoramus TP GOP is all wrong, right? Poor America under Reaganist bs.

 

[kaz]

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?

I don't accept your statement that the first amendment allows you to victimize children. How is that freedom of speech?

And answer my question, so you can murder the naked child as well since you're filming it and you have freedom of speech?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I am curious why modern American liberals are so put out by the FACT that the primary ORIGINAL purpose of the 2d Amendment was indeed that the right to bear arms DID serve as a check, by the people, on a potentially oppressive government.

I don't call of armed insurrections, yet I do support the 2d Amendment. and like the Supreme Court majority has noted (in at least one of the two relatively recent major 2d Amendment cases): the right to bear arms was a right that PRECEDED the foundation of America. The Second Amendment served only to make it explicitly a SECURED right.

The amendment makes it clear it is talking about the need for militias. If it wanted to talk about the need to preserve the ability for armed rebellion against that Constitition it could have......it didn't

Our Constitution is such a great document that it makes armed rebellion unnecessary

What a dumbass statement.
Armed rebellion against the Constitution? You clod,the government not following the Constitution would be the reason for rebellion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

First off, as you knew before you just lied, I never welshed. Period. That's ok, credibility aint yer strong suit anyway.

We got to the topic of Shrillary, for those weak minded sots such as you who cannot follow the line from A to B, by wondering why some dolt liberal Democrat loyalist hacks give a rat's ass about the assertion of GOP candidate Cruz in the first place. It's not like you would ever vote for him one way or the other.

The 2d Amendment is NOT the topic of this thread, either. The TOPIC is the Cruz contention that the 2d Amendment had a purpose of serving as an ultimate check against tyrannical government. It started off as an attack on a GOP candidate for allegedly saying something sinister and stupid.

It was neither. It was, instead, a correct historical and factual contention about one of Amendments in our Bill of Rights.

I wonder if Shrillary would dispute its accuracy (assuming she were capable of addressing a Constitutional question in the first place)?

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?

Child porn is not informative. Nor is it necessary to promote the general welfare of the people.
Nor is it a means to seek redress.
Cut the crap.....The exploitation of children by adults is no more acceptable than it is to rob a bank and claim the money is to pay for the arts.

 

[kaz]

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.

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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"?.....Please elaborate.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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 **** out of it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're right- the TP is not about hate- lol- and only 50% are PROUDLY racist...

Franco-tug. You are far from an authority on anybody being right or wrong. Douche bags like you are as pathetic as nutz is. You are led around by the nose like a ******* puppet. If Soros commands, you jump! And you don't even realize what a tool you are.

I have read a couple of things said or done by a couple of alleged Tea Party-ers which were racist. I have also noted that one of the highly cherished icons of the liberal Democrat Parody (Robert Sheets Byrd) was a grand poobah or whatever they call it of the KKK.

According to what passes for "logic," therefore, in your pinhead, the entire liberal Democrat Parody must be completely and devotedly racist. You cock biter.

Now, go **** yourself with a rust rasp up your ass you bug ******.

Jeeebus what a hater dupe. Yup, Byrd was KKK in 1948. So you have one stupid talking point and a pile of stupid insults. THE "no compromise, un-American TP GOP" (TIME) is a brainwashed, bigoted, ignorant disgrace, run by greedy idiot billionaires PERIOD. Dems will kick your dumass in 2016.

Wow...You have problems.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

Yup. Or they say really stupid crap like, "the crime occurred on the day and in the manner it happened" The pictures are just pictures and not an ongoing crime. Possession of kiddie porn to them is thus one of those so-called victimless crimes.

Although, in fairness, I have spoken with some libs who GET it and don't make such absurd arguments.

 

[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?

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 **** 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 and/or within 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.

 

[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.

YOU are scary stupid or entirely dishonest. Either way, you are just a troll and of no value here.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

So where's your state militia lol, and how would you gun nuts do against an army? Our CONSTITUTION is actually our defense, but we don't need guns everywhere just so the NRA etc etc etc can make THEIR money. Pass background checks on ALL sales, and try and remain calm, brainwashed tin foilers.

Who is "we"?.....
You are one stupid ****....Go ahead and point out where I made any statement opposing background checks for fire arm purchases.
Jagoff. Take your faux rage and faux anger to your local minister. See if he cares.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Since we are talking gun nut fantasies, let's talk about the "from my cold dead hands" fantasy

In this fantasy, gun nuts will fight to the death to protect their arms

So, if We the People, as part of our constitutional right, pass legislation banning assault rifles with 50 round magazines........gun nuts will fire on peace officers doing their job

What makes you think those peace officers are going to side with YOU

Why do you think police departments across the country have said they wont enforce unconstitutional gun laws?
Even your dumbass should be able to read between the lines.

 

[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.

YOU are scary stupid or entirely dishonest. Either way, you are just a troll and of no value here.

You are just a lemming incapable of thinking for himself. Sheesh...just look at all of the hate spewed by your teaper ilk on this forum. Oh, forgot...you are a victim...all of the teaper hate speech is just a mass conspracy. The teapers spewing hate are just liberals pretending to be teapers.

Pathetic. People like yourself are too dumb to have an intelligent conversation with...you are so full of hate, you can't think rationally.

 

[kaz]

Yup. Or they say really stupid crap like, "the crime occurred on the day and in the manner it happened" The pictures are just pictures and not an ongoing crime. Possession of kiddie porn to them is thus one of those so-called victimless crimes.

Although, in fairness, I have spoken with some libs who GET it and don't make such absurd arguments.

Since a child can't consent to doing porn, to display the pictures is victimizing them again. It wasn't just the original photos that victimized them

Sad none of the liberals in this thread are saying, wait a second, that doesn't represent my view...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

We get it. YOU oppose guns and gun rights.

I oppose OBSESSING over guns and gun rights. , I oppose this continuous monologue that guns are being taken away from law abiding citizens. And I have guns. And NO ONE from the government has come to take my guns in my lifetime. Not even close.

I live in a state that lets you carry in bars and is now trying to keep the police from taking a gun from a person when there has been a domestic violence call but no one is being charged at that time. SO let the gun stay in the house and see what happens is this legislatures purpose. But DO NOT take the ******* gun.

Guns are a tool. If you want to buy and use that tool, have at it. But quit OBSESSING over it.
Stick with obsessing over gays. At least they are people instead of a thing.

I'm with you Zeke

I have no problems with having guns for hunting, sport or self defense

But when gun nuts rant about taking up arms against MY country, about not impacting the gun rights of wife beaters, crazies and fellows.

Just turns my stomach

You idiot..how many times does it have to be said it would be in the defense of the Constitution.
I know you dont hold that document in high regard,but many of us do.
It's really simple,dont infringe on Constitutional rights and there wont be a problem.

 

[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 **** 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.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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 **** 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.

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 ******* sheep and never lift a finger to stop it?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

YOU are scary stupid or entirely dishonest. Either way, you are just a troll and of no value here.

So, you cannot provide an exact quote from the US Constitution or from Federal Law.
You flail wildy and somehow, I suspect you think it is supposed to impress.

It does not.

What impresses are facts.

FACT is that there is not one shred of evidence in the US Constitution or in even one single Federal Law that one of the purposes for the 2nd amendment is armed insurrection against the US Government.

Not even one single shred.

How about court cases where people have sued to be able to shoot the gubbermint?

Got any court cases? Docket numbers? Rulings? Hmmmmm?

This is a real weakness of Righties: when the time comes for hard evidence, and their backs are to the wall, they just get angry and scream stupid shit like "buttress".

Righties have no idea how debate really works.