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

[Statistikhengst]

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

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

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

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

How about Federal Law? Any luck there?

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

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

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

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

Let's see..

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

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

Truly wise men

Yepp.

 

[kaz]

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

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

Whether they agree or not, it is perplexing to me how clearly and repeatedly you have said this is your position, and they just can't comprehend what you said. That is why I have a hard time having any respect for leftists. If they are well intentioned, why not grasp your point and built on it rather than continuing to post that they didn't get it and aren't therefore going to address it?

 

[jasonnfree]

I wonder what's stopping Cruz and the right wing loonacracy on this board from taking up arms against the government anyway since Obama has been trying to destroy this country from day one. What does it take patriots?

 

[kaz]

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

Let's see..

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

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

True, and a right to keep and bear arms that cannot be infringed by government. LOL, you just said you lost the argument, classic. You didn't think that answer through, big guy. Not that you ever do

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

How about Federal Law? Any luck there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then why did they give us the right to guns without infringement and write they believe government is best held in check by an armed citizenry?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

I ask for one final time:

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

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

LAW and "opinion" are NOT the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

Only, that is a lie.

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

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

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

No..What you attempted to point out is that Cruz is advocating armed insurrection.
And you tried to back it up with "the military will fire at citizens" who refuse to comply..
When you figure out the difference between a deliberate act to over throw the government and an armed citizenry confronting tyranny, let me know.
Until then, we;'re through here.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

I ask for one final time:

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

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

LAW and "opinion" are NOT the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

Only, that is a lie.

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

The preceding quotes can be found at: Bear Arms

 

[Mertex]

It is the right of every individual to defend themselves from tyranny, up to an including, taking the lives of those who tyrannize them.

But first you have to define what tyranny is, not getting your way every time Republicans come up with shit laws is not being tyrannized.

The government has not used excessive power......the only time government has used excessive power is when all these red-neck racist policemen have shot and killed innocent people, but you and the rest of your party think it is fine.....so please give me an example of when you've been tyrannized.

Tyranny:
: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government<the tyranny of a police state>

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

and military superpower

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

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

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

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

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

Hyperbole much?

Marxism or anarchy?

The Government doing things to help We the People is not Marxism

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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

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

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

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

Only, that is a lie.

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

The preceding quotes can be found at: Bear Arms

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

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Maybe he can get Sharon Angle as his running mate.

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

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

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

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

A real smart move on your part.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Let's see..

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

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

True, and a right to keep and bear arms that cannot be infringed by government. LOL, you just said you lost the argument, classic. You didn't think that answer through, big guy. Not that you ever do

A bunch of drunken rednecks with hunting rifles cannot keep our government in check.
If our founders were concerned with federal tyranny they would have arranged for state run Navies to compete with the federal navy and funded militias of equal strength to the federal army

Instead we got freedom of speech, free press and a vote

Much, much more powerful than guns

 

[kaz]

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

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

and military superpower

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

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

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

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

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

Hyperbole much?

Marxism or anarchy?

The Government doing things to help We the People is not Marxism

So I said government should be limited and you came back with that makes me an anarchist and you're asking if I hyperbole much?

Yeah

 

[kaz]

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

Let's see..

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

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

True, and a right to keep and bear arms that cannot be infringed by government. LOL, you just said you lost the argument, classic. You didn't think that answer through, big guy. Not that you ever do

A bunch of drunken rednecks with hunting rifles cannot keep our government in check.
If our founders were concerned with federal tyranny they would have arranged for state run Navies to compete with the federal navy and funded militias of equal strength to the federal army

Instead we got freedom of speech, free press and a vote

Much, much more powerful than guns

Begging the question

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

and military superpower

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

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

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

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

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

Hyperbole much?

Marxism or anarchy?

The Government doing things to help We the People is not Marxism

So I said government should be limited and you came back with that makes me an anarchist and you're asking if I hyperbole much?

Yeah

Read your own posts

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that we should elect Cruz, and then immediately have a revolution, and maroon him on St. Helena island.

 

[kaz]

Read your own posts

I read my posts and yours. You read neither

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think that we should elect Cruz, and then immediately have a revolution, and maroon him on St. Helena island.

A Plan!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Read your own posts

I read my posts and yours. You read neither

STRAWMAN...strawman

 

[Mertex]

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

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

and military superpower

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

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

Why do conservatives keep insisting that libs are all poor and on welfare? The majority of states that receive the most welfare are red states......so maybe you're the one running to the mailbox every morning.

Addicting Info Red States Are The Real Welfare States

You need to get updated so you don't make inane comments such as you did.

How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich - Forbes