[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 2nd Amendment Question Re: Rebellion (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/4/2013 3:35:17 PM EDT
|
If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion?
I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? |
|
It was written as an "escape clause" against a despotic government or despotic leader..rebellion against the popularly elected Government
was not the issue... despots/autocratic rules and rulers and usurpation of individual rights and liberties that are supported in the Constitution were. They feared tyrant Kings etc. and tried to walk a fine line between loyalty to the new republic and the means to always exercise the means to depose tyranny if it took root in the Government. Read the writings of Madison, Jefferson Franklin etc to know that in the times they lived in Despotic leaders and autocracy were the norm but that they gave us a new form of of Government called a " Constitutional Republic" "if we can keep it" and gave us the best means to so at the time. At least that's my interpretation of it and but what do I know? Although one of my relatives was a signer of the Declaration. 
|
|
Quoted:
It was written as an "escape clause" against a despotic government or despotic leader..rebellion against the popularly elected Government was not the issue... despots/autocratic rules and rulers and usurpation of individual rights and liberties that are supported in the Constitution were. They feared tyrant Kings etc. Read the writings of Madison, Jefferson Franklin etc to know that in the times they lived in Despotic leaders and autocracy were the norm but that they gave us a new form of of Government called a " Constitutional Republic" "if we can keep it" and gave us the best means to so at the time. At least that's my interpretation of it and but what do I know? Although one of my relatives was a signer of the Declaration. And, one might add the the FFs were either seen as freedom fighters, or insurgents....depending upon one's view of the Crown at the time. Me, hell....I just want to be infamous as a moody loner that kept to himself. |
|
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. |
|
It's all about who wins. Any government will call it treason - so don't lose. I guess it has to come down to the fact that you would choose death over continuing to live as things are. Liberty or death.
I'm sure it wasn't intended to be used against the government as it was at the time, but they could see that it may not always be benevolent and I think the intent was for it to be the final option to set things right when letting things stay as they are is unthinkable. |
|
Quoted:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Hey, that's catchy. Can I use it as my sig line?
TC ETA--Thanks. We all need to be reminded of this every so often. (Some younger Gov't. School grads may be seeing it for the first time...) |
|
Quoted:
If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? If we need the 2A for rebellion, treason has already been committed and the rebels aren't rebelling against the government, but rather a usurper of the government. Ergo, not treasonous. |
|
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
-- Thomas Jefferson, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, "& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. " -- Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " --Jefferson intent is clear. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's not treason if you win.  This is the real answer. It is important to remember that the Founding fathers were all essentially British people who turned traitor. It is also important to remember the CoC rules of this site, and to tread carefully in threads like this. 
|
|
Quoted: Just want to add another very important Jefferson quote to your list:"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." -- Thomas Jefferson, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, "& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. " -- Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " --Jefferson intent is clear. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's not treason if you win. This is the real answer. It is important to remember that the Founding fathers were all essentially British people who turned traitor. It is also important to remember the CoC rules of this site, and to tread carefully in threads like this. Also that the founders were perfectly happy to put down folks who rebelled against them. That tends to be a trend throughout history. 
|
|
Quoted: If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? You need to read the Constitution. Treason is narrowly defined. Article 3 - The Judicial Branch Section 3 - Treason I don't see rebellion against an despotic government that has usurped the Consitution in that definition. |
|
Is not subverting amendment 2 treason? Or any other for that matter? Or hell, at least illegal.
Would not suspending the writ of habeas corpus be in order? If the government is going to abuse us why not go all the way. At some point someone in our government is going to have to make a stand, political correctness be damned. I'm kind of tired of working my ass off and waiting to see how my government is going to screw me next; seems that the Constitution already spells out what they can do. |
|
Quoted: If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? Rebellion against *what*? FTR all people in Government including the Army take an oath to the Constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic for a reason. The intent of the 2nd has seems to have been a bit lost but was best expressed in the past 30 years. By that I mean the Cold War and nuclear power. It wasn't about who had the most bombs, it was about the ability of one side to ruin the shit of the other side. Make the prospect so horrible a thought that no one ever tries it. The FF were never in favor of a standing army as they tended to become the henchmen of the government. So fair enough you have a government that has completely left the reservation and deployed the US Army to disarm the population and implement it's will. Could a "Well regulated militia" defeat the standing and much better equipped Army? Unlikely, but that isn't the point. As a country we have an identity that isn't matched in nearly any place in the world. Yes, I live in Texas but as a whole we are Americans. Even the EU which tried to emulate the concept couldn't make it happen. Just as any German if they are German or a "EU-Person". As a result what "American" wants to take up arms against other Americans. not matter how "legal" the order? Few, but lets say enough do. What Texan is going to go take up arms against other Texans? Or even Californians against other Californians? A damn few. Take it one step further. Let's say a National Guard organization is ordered to "secure" Texas. At what point does that seem like a really, really, bad idea? Sure, as a group you could make it happen, but at what personal cost? Maybe get New Jersey or New York to do it? The effect would simply be too horrific. And it was EXACTLY the intend of the Constitution that it never occurs. And that is the point. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? You need to read the Constitution. Treason is narrowly defined. Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason I don't see rebellion against an despotic government that has usurped the Consitution in that definition. You don't think trying to overthrow the government would count as levying War against it? |
|
IMO defending yourself doesn't always equal rebellion. If the Jews had been able to shoot back as they were being rounded up, would that be rebellion? In a way I suppose, depending on how you look at it.
Whenever someone tries to tell me that we wouldn't ever win a war against our troops with or little rifles, I tell them that they're probably right. But I don't see it ever getting to that point while we are able to shoot back. Checks and balances. The government is not going go into a state of full blown tyranny with an armed population. But if they can trick us into disarming ourselves, then what's to stop them? |
|
Quoted:
Cause the parts where the Constitution talks about dealing with traitors, insurrections, those levying war against the U.S. etc., assume that the chuckleheads in Washington would be following the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is there for when they burn it. Winner winner chicken dinner! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? You need to read the Constitution. Treason is narrowly defined. Article 3 - The Judicial Branch Section 3 - Treason I don't see rebellion against an despotic government that has usurped the Consitution in that definition. You don't think trying to overthrow the government would count as levying War against it? A "despotic government that has usurped the Constitution" has placed itself outside the Constitution. It isn't the "government" described in Article III, Section 3 anymore then is it? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? You need to read the Constitution. Treason is narrowly defined. Article 3 - The Judicial Branch Section 3 - Treason I don't see rebellion against an despotic government that has usurped the Consitution in that definition. You don't think trying to overthrow the government would count as levying War against it? A "despotic government that has usurped the Constitution" has placed itself outside the Constitution. It isn't the "government" described in Article III, Section 3 anymore then is it? But who gets to decide whether the state has stepped beyond constitutional bounds? |
|
Quoted:
If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? Insurrection, not rebellion. Here's how I think about it. The constitution is a deal. If the federal government acted constitutionally, it would be acting correctly, and constitutionally to put down insurrection. The federal government has however broken that deal, and would be acting unconstitutionally if it put down insurrection by those who want to force it to honor that deal. The 2nd allows us to have the weapons that we need until/if that time ever comes that they've stolen so much liberty from us that we think it worthwhile to take back what is ours. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? You need to read the Constitution. Treason is narrowly defined. Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason I don't see rebellion against an despotic government that has usurped the Consitution in that definition. You don't think trying to overthrow the government would count as levying War against it? A "despotic government that has usurped the Constitution" has placed itself outside the Constitution. It isn't the "government" described in Article III, Section 3 anymore then is it? But who gets to decide whether the state has stepped beyond constitutional bounds? Each of us does. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rebellion against a government that abides by the Constitution is treason. Rebellion against a government that exceeds the limits placed upon it by the Constitution is not treason. Then we should have watered the tree a century ago. I didn't say that we were on schedule.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? You need to read the Constitution. Treason is narrowly defined. Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason I don't see rebellion against an despotic government that has usurped the Consitution in that definition. You don't think trying to overthrow the government would count as levying War against it? A "despotic government that has usurped the Constitution" has placed itself outside the Constitution. It isn't the "government" described in Article III, Section 3 anymore then is it? But who gets to decide whether the state has stepped beyond constitutional bounds? Each of us does. It's really amazing to see how correct the anti-federalists were. The constitution as written could have worked, except for the power hungry assholes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just want to add another very important Jefferson quote to your list:"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." -- Thomas Jefferson, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, "& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. " -- Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " --Jefferson intent is clear. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
tag |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If, according to the Constitution, rebellion is treason, then how can the Second Amendment, a part of that document, be seen as meant to enable rebellion? I'm not antigun and agree that keeping RKBA is important in case we ever need to defend ourselves from the government, but is rebellion really one of the intended purposes of the 2A, or more like a happy side effect? You need to read the Constitution. Treason is narrowly defined. Article 3 - The Judicial Branch Section 3 - Treason I don't see rebellion against an despotic government that has usurped the Consitution in that definition. You don't think trying to overthrow the government would count as levying War against it? A "despotic government that has usurped the Constitution" has placed itself outside the Constitution. It isn't the "government" described in Article III, Section 3 anymore then is it? But who gets to decide whether the state has stepped beyond constitutional bounds? Each of us does. Individually? |
| The founders treated government as a utility.. Something that should be cast down when it inevitably breaks. They believed also that keeping the government scared of its people would keep the people in control. The government was intended as a placeholder to prevent anyone from governing the people, and to provide for basic functions a country needs. It's gone from a utility to a totalitariat sadly. But to answer your question, the people are supposed to outgun the government simply because we are the ones who are intended to be in charge, dammit. |