U.S. Army prepares to invade Texas

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The thing is; I don't see that it's all that "vague". It calls for well regulated state militia. There is no mention of individual rights in the amendment itself.........what-so-ever. Some see vagueness in the second half. Some see absolute certainty of "individual rights" in the second half. I see neither. We have never had an absolute individual right to unregulated gun ownership that some insist we do today.

Now, you could argue intent based on other writings by the founders. That would be the only place where an argument could be made, IMO. However, such writings do not constitute the agreed upon and signed legal document. They only express the intent of some of the individuals involved.

"Intent" is the core of disputed interpretations, I'm quite sure the NRA has a different interpretation of the obtuse phrasing.
I'm also pretty sure the phrasing does NOT sanction armed insurrection for ANY reason as some insist it does.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

"Intent" is the core of disputed interpretations, I'm quite sure the NRA has a different interpretation of the obtuse phrasing.
I'm also pretty sure the phrasing does NOT sanction armed insurrection for ANY reason as some insist it does.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Our revolution was a successful armed insurrection. Responsible citizens have the right to arm themselves as a deterrent to tyrants.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

Our revolution was a successful armed insurrection. Responsible citizens have the right to arm themselves as a deterrent to tyrants.

The suicidal aspects of the concept aside, where do you see that right referenced in the text of the 2nd Amendment?

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by nailer

Our revolution was a successful armed insurrection. Responsible citizens have the right to arm themselves as a deterrent to tyrants.

This just won't fly, Bob, it isn't in there nor is it implied.
We were a cash cow colony in revolt then against progressively oppressive and uncaring distant oversight. We are far from that extreme today with Syria as one bad example.
Revolution is absolutely a last resort with a very uncertain outcome, we were very fortunate here to have done better than most.
The Federal gov't wouldn't tolerate an armed insurrection and would use any means necessary to crush it, as it did in the 1860s. The answer is restoring a representative gov't that also protects the right of the minority while representing the legitimate interests of the majority under law.

If it's broke, fix it. Otherwise, get what we get letting the Golden Rule prevail. (Those with the gold, rule, "Fuck you, I've got mine".)

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Boreas]

It's also worth noting that our revolution would have failed were it not for the assistance of another tyrant.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

This just won't fly, Bob, it isn't in there nor is it implied.
We were a cash cow colony in revolt then against progressively oppressive and uncaring distant oversight. We are far from that extreme today with Syria as one bad example.
Revolution is absolutely a last resort with a very uncertain outcome, we were very fortunate here to have done better than most.
The Federal gov't wouldn't tolerate an armed insurrection and would use any means necessary to crush it, as it did in the 1860s. The answer is restoring a representative gov't that also protects the right of the minority while representing the legitimate interests of the majority under law.

If it's broke, fix it. Otherwise, get what we get letting the Golden Rule prevail. (Those with the gold, rule. "Fuck you, I've got mine".)

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Bob, thus is directed more toward the NRA minded 2nd amendment types tho its a response to your post. I don't think you ascribe to the notion that our present situation is tyranny or that the Second Amendment authorizes armed insurrection.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The suicidal aspects of the concept aside, where do you see that right referenced in the text of the 2nd Amendment?

Responsible citizens are suicidal?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

Responsible citizens are suicidal?

Answering a question with a question is proof of a bankrupt position.

Please tell me where in the 2nd Amendment is the right of rebellion against our own government expressed. It isn't even implied.

And the idea of a bunch of bushmaster-toting rednecks trying to overthrow the US by defeating the most powerful army in the world is most definitely suicidal.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Bob, thus is directed more toward the NRA minded 2nd amendment types tho its a response to your post. I don't think you ascribe to the notion that our present situation is tyranny or that the Second Amendment authorizes armed insurrection.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I don't think the Constitution in any way authorizes armed insurrection.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

GW said otherwise:

“And that the said Constitution be never 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; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

George Washington

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...cond-amendment

Well, we have a standing army these days and have for a very long time. It's a rather large one, I believe. Also, armed insurrection can't reasonably be described as "petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances" so I don't see the relevance of this quote.