Exposing the Ignorance Behind the Belief That the Second Amendment is About Overthrowing Our Government

gun-nuts3Let’s be real, many conservatives don’t cherish our Second Amendment because they want guns for self defense, sport or because they collect guns as a hobby.

Oh, no.

Many conservatives believe, all the way down to their bones, that our Second Amendment is there to give Americans the ability to “rise up” against the federal government in some kind of armed revolt.

Putting aside the laughable thought that a bunch of conservatives think that they can defeat the greatest military in the history of all humankind with guns bought from Walmart, this notion that we have the right to overthrow our government makes absolutely no sense.

Let’s say, right now, conservatives decided to throw President Obama out of office through an armed rebellion. Though let’s ignore the fact that our Constitution sets up a process by which we can oust a sitting president. But ignoring all the other glaring realities we have to in order to believe that this is possible, let’s just say they were successful in removing him from office through some sort of armed revolt. Then following his removal from office, let’s say we held presidential elections just as we normally would.

And we elected Hillary Clinton.

Then let’s say they don’t like what she’s doing, so they manage to successfully stage a second armed rebellion that overthrows another sitting president. And, again, we elect our next president through the normal process.

Only this time we elect Elizabeth Warren. Someone else with which these conservatives will strongly disagree on pretty much everything.

What then? Do they just keep overthrowing these Constitutionally elected presidents until they get one that they like? Do they try to rig our election system until it elects a candidate they support?

And isn’t overthrowing a government that’s elected by the people extremely, you know, anti-American? Because what about those tens of millions of Americans who do support the government (or president) that was just overthrown? Do their votes suddenly not matter?

Then doesn’t that “second revolution” actually become kind of a fixed conservative-controlled dictatorship based on electing politicians that they want elected? Because what’s the point of an armed revolution against the government, if the people who elected that government you just overthrew… end up electing the same types of people to the “new” government the next time around?

Meaning that the only way a “second revolution” makes any sense would be for those who staged the revolt to rig the system in such a way that only the kinds of politicians they want elected – can actually get elected.

Which would mean that tens of millions of Americans would instantly have their votes nullified. Something that would be extremely unconstitutional. Unlessof course, these “revolutionaries” planned to unilaterally change our Constitution to fix the “problem” of Americans voting in politicians they don’t want elected. Which would also be extremely unconstitutional.

See where I’m going with this?

In no way, in any logical manner, does it make any sense to believe that our Second Amendment is meant to overthrow a Constitutionally elected government. 

Because by doing so, not only would that mean that those Americans who did support the president (or government) would instantly have their Constitutional voting rights nullified, but it would also mean that those overthrowing our government would have to take unconstitutional measures to change our Constitution to better suit their ideology.

And none of that is even the least bit Constitutional.

So, in reality, it would take a massive violation of the Constitutional rights of tens of millions of Americans, and a huge violation of our Constitutional process for changing that very Constitution, for this “second revolution” to even have a point.

It’s actually ironic that these Americans who believe that they can rise up against the government to “protect the Constitution” – would essentially be pissing all over it if they actually got their way.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Stephen Barlow

    Freakin’ nonsense!
    Insurrection if successful, would nullify the Constitution. Dictatorship, even if “elected” by the à select few, would give way to military government via coup.

    Because once overthrown, WHO would HOLD THE 50 STATES ELECTION?

    • xnerd

      Welfare? There IS NO WELFARE For Christs sake, im a little tired of people talking about welfare. Clinton signed WRA!!!!! Welfare basically evaporated for anyone that wasn’t a single mother.

      I think the states would indeed make sure that their most vulnerable citizens were taken care of.

      • Charles Vincent

        That isn’t completely accurate.

    • Jim Bean

      What? That is completely incoherent and you wasted my time trying figure out what the hell, if anything, you were saying.

      If you own a bong, give it some time to freakin’ cool down.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I write with a college education I’m sorry’read with the third grade education I understand the incompatibility with your lack of education or intelligence is not my fault or responsibility I pay taxes for public school and if you didn’t do your homework it’s your own damn fault to be ass you are.

      • Jim Bean

        I write with a college education I’m sorry’read with the third grade education I understand the incompatibility with your lack of education or intelligence is not my fault

  • Sandy Greer

    This entire article is the hypothetical speculation of an imagination run wild. Let’s say this happens? Or what if that?? And then what??? Good Lord. Get ’em all riled up. Right, Clifton?

    How is it (given militarized police, and articles on FP about trigger happy cops) we rail against our citizenry being armed? Does not compute.

    People across the entire political spectrum own guns. It’s not all conservatives. Not all Revolution. Hell, even Dems are armed – Women too. Most people who have guns – grew up with them. Many hunt. Others keep them for protection. Some of us want guns just because you don’t want us to have them. Yeah. Go figure.

    Bottom line – 2A is part of the Constitution. Don’t like it? Get it repealed. And then come get the guns.

    But I won’t get a ‘hate on’ for people that own guns. Especially over something that’s not even on the agenda. Ain’t gonna happen. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    • DMJ

      The article wasn’t about taking guns at all. It was about the wrong belief that the second amendment allows for some type of overthrowing of the government despite such an overthrow being unconstitutional. If all you got from this article was that people are trying to take your guns then your problem is a lack of comprehension as not once did the piece say anything about people not having the right to have guns

      • Sandy Greer

        This entire article is the hypothetical speculation of an
        imagination run wild – clear to Paranoia.

        If you buy his argument that gun owners want to overthrow the government – then you’re sitting in his church, in your Sunday best. Because he’s preaching that Straw Man to the choir. And none other.

        Odds are better you’ll repeal 2A than that your neighbors plot to overthrow the government.

      • Sam Brosenberg

        Sandy, I don’t know what bubble you’re living in, but there are LOTS of people who talk loudly and publicly about overthrowing the government. State Senators, and even a Congressman or two if I’m not mistaken. Private citizens, and state officials both. This is not something Allen is making up. He’s not saying all gun owners want to overthrow the government, but it is verifiable FACT that there is a large group of people who DO believe that their guns give them the right to do that if they so choose. Which is retarded.

      • Sandy Greer

        You’re not the first person to accuse me of living in a bubble. Probably won’t be the last.

        But if, as you say – there are LOTS of people who “talk loudly” (caps, anyone?) and DO, in FACT, advocate such – Allen should present them, with his arguments. Marshall his forces, so to speak, against the Revolutionaries. So we can see just how many the foe are. No good bringing hypothetical speculation and imagination to a gunfight, after all.

        Because I’m not buying what he’s selling. Or you. Even if it is an election year. And even if I do live in a bubble.

      • Quhyung Park

        Look at the comments below. Several people, like “Charles Vincent”, plot to overthrow the government with their guns if they deem it to be “tyrannical”.

      • Jim Bean

        It WAS written for the precise purpose of overthrowing the government – nothing else – written by people who had just overthrown the British Government, and who were making damn sure the next government wouldn’t be able to deprive them of repeating the exercise again, should the situation deteriorate enough to warrant it.

      • Sam Brosenberg

        Jim Bean, if you were the ruling elite living in Virginia, and had just created a new country that you and your ilk were in charge of, WHY THE FUCK would you create a legal mechanism by which you could be violently deposed and overthrown? People don’t act against their own best interest and there is NOT A CHANCE IN HELL that any of the aristocrats who we call the Founding Fathers sat down and said “You know what? Now that we’re in charge of America, we should let the people legally kill us and takeover whenever they want. That totally makes sense.”

      • Sandy Greer

        Is your argument:

        WHY THE FUCK would anyone act for the ‘greater good’ (altruistically) when we can just go Me First?

        That there is NOT A CHANCE IN HELL that any of us will act for that ‘greater good’ – in search of an ideal?

        That even those who risked all they had to create a ‘more perfect union’ – were not, indeed, in search of it?

        Seems a rather jaded view.

      • Brian

        The existence of slavery quickly puts to rest such an assertion

      • Cemetery Girl

        Explain the Whiskey Rebellion being put down if the absolute intent was for the people to be able to rise up when they felt the government was violating their rights. It is understandable why those farmers were enraged, using your cash crops to produce whiskey made sense. It lasts longer, transported easier, and was a product in demand. It also made sense that a government that had a dire need for money to pay for the services of those that participated in battle in the revolution would tax a product in high demand. Taxation being a key role in the revolution, you still didn’t have Washington allowing the rebellion. Instead it helped set the precident that the federal government could create taxes to pay its expenses.

      • Jim Bean

        Simple. Not enough of them rose up. If they had had no weapons, there would have been no uprising at all. Just meek little farmers, sucking it up at gun point.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Only a small area was interested in revolt. A bigger portion of the population agreed that the tax was unfair, but that didn’t mean they agreed with violent uprising.

      • xnerd

        It is NOT unconstitutional when you operate under the assumption that this hypothetical revolt is predicated on a paradigm where the government has become Anti constitutional.

        It would be absolutely your duty as a US citizen to protect the constitution but removing the illegal regime.

        Again AGAIN AGAIN, Im not a gun nut, I own guns but I am all for strong strict regulations. Period.

      • Sam Brosenberg

        That is incorrect, nerd. We live in a Constitutional Republic, where the government is elected by the people. What you are describing is a lynch mob, where a bunch of random people get together and decide to kill someone that they do not like.

        Who decides that the government has become “Anti Constitutional”, whatever that means? You? Me? Any group of 500 people or more? Do the people making that decision actually have to know anything about the Constitution, or can they just make up whatever they want?

        Also, speaking of Constitutionality, I would LOVE to see where in the Constitution of the United States you see the right to violently overthrow the government. If you want to avoid wasting time I’ll give you a hint; there’s nothing. We actually DO have a Constitutional mechanism for removing corrupt officials from office; it is a process called impeachment. We also have these things called elections, where any politician can be replaced with someone more suitable.

        Violently overthrowing the government because you disagree with its politics is pretty much the definition of Unconstitutional.

      • Nemisis

        I agree, violent revolt is not acceptable.
        However it is also not excluded.
        You can not show me anywhere in the constitution that if the people believe the government is no longer for the people that an armed, and if necessary violent, revolt is prohibited.

        To be fair the likelihood that it would come about is extremely small it is not impossible.
        Not so long as we have a government by the people for the people except when people are considered second class when compared to corporations or institutions of theology.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong you are incorrect we have exactly that recourse. Both Hamilton and Madison stated this when they penned the federalist papers. They also posited a litmus test for the people to determine when/if such a decision was prudent.

      • Brian

        So they would have been in favor of a slave revolt to overthrow their masters? And the southern states voted for that in the second amendment?

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re ignoring ~70 years between the ratification of the constitution and the civil war. for starters all 13 colonies voted to ratify the constitution and did so with the rider that a bill of rights would be included. Slavery has little to do with the second amendment under your premise.

      • poppaDavid

        Actually the concerns about a slave revolt were part of the Second Amendment. Putting down a slave revolt was one intended use for the organized militias.

      • Charles Vincent

        That is a myth its been debunked, learn how to research correctly.

      • Andrew Morris

        Just because you claim it’s been debunked doesn’t make it so. Potential slave revolt was a undercurrent in pre-Civil War society dating back to the colonial era. May want to check your sources and “research” correctly.

      • Charles Vincent

        Already have proved this on a FP article a while back when pretty much every article was about guncontrol

      • poppaDavid

        “Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas” by S.E. Hadden (2002) indicates that in South Carolina and Virginia slave patrols were selected from the compulsory state militias. The militia was called out when the situation required.

      • Charles Vincent

        Those slave patrols were likely happening before the constitution. And no doubt the people Chosen were in the good old boys club. Contrary to your belief not everyone in the south supported slavery just like not everyone in the north was anti-slavery. How easy would it to be to pick bigots from a large group of people Chief? And who did the picking? The slave owners would be my guess as they had the vested interest this its a circular logic argument on your part.

      • Brian

        You have actually just proved the opposite point. Who has a better case for overthrowing the government under the “tyranny” theory than slaves? I’m sure the southern states that ratified the 2nd amendment were all for that interpretation.

      • Charles Vincent

        I presume you are talking about Thom Hartmans writing on the subject. If so his assertions where based on an “Carl T. Bogus article he cites,
        which in turn relies on Herbert Aptheker’s 1949 book, generally
        considered exaggerated even at the time it was published, before much
        additional research on slave revolts had made historians curious about
        their relative infrequency when compared with other slave societies in
        the New World. Nor were the few serious slave revolts during the
        colonial period confined to the South, with two in New York City (1712
        and 1741).”

        Sorry you have been had.

      • Brian

        Actually no, I’m talking about common sense which you seem to be purposfully ignoring along with the point. Simple questions:
        1) Would slaves be justified in revolting against the government due to “tyranny”?
        2) Were the founders intelligent enough to understand that the argument that there is a right to overthrough an unjust government would apply to the slaves?
        3) Why would they add a provision into the consitution that would explicitly give their “property” the right and equipment to revolt?

      • Charles Vincent

        1) All people either slave or freeman are justified in revolting against tyranny. John Locke acknowledged this, the Magna Charta acknowledged this, Lord Blackstone acknowledged this, and so did the founding fathers. Furthermore It hasn’t just been slaves in the Americas slavery has existed for most of recorded history and in most of those cases slaves turned on their masters.

        Numbers 2 and 3 are self evident. read Locks treatise on government the second one it explains this and also realize the founders looked at and implemented what Locke postulated among other things.

      • Brian

        Well then that leaves us with 4) why didn’t the founding fathers ban slavery given that they thought slaves had the right to rise up and overthrow their masters? Instead, they not only maintained it but ensshirned it in the constitution.

      • Charles Vincent

        Perhaps their intent was just that. You assume only your assertion is the correct one and for go others because they don’t fit your narrative

      • Brian

        Their intent was what? You are not making any sense.If their intent was to ban slavery, that is pretty contary to the history of the document. If you think their intent in the 2nd amendment was to provide for a slave revult, that is also ahistorical.

      • Charles Vincent

        No the 2A was to help individuals or groups of individuls resist tyranny in any form. You are the one saying it was written to suppress slave revolts and track down runaway slaves. Something no one has proven true or provided any serious facts to support that assertion.

      • Brian

        “You are the one saying it was written to suppress slave revolts and track down runaway slaves.” I never made such a claim. I suggest you try reading.

      • Charles Vincent

        Firstly you inserted your reply in to a conversation on that topic may me you should learn to stay on topic. Second Hamilton and Madison both addressed revolt against government that abuses it’s power.

        “[Speaking of those who would devise unjust election rules:] Would they not fear that
        citizens, not less tenacious than conscious of their rights, would flock from the remotest
        extremes of their respective States to the places of election, to overthrow their tyrants and
        to substitute men who would be disposed to avenge the violated majesty of the people? ”
        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 60

      • Charles Vincent

        Charles Vincent poppaDavid • 2 days ago
        That’s your ill informed opinion the federalist papers say different.

        If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left
        but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive
        forms of government
        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 28

        and

        But ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the State
        governments would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only.
        They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common
        cause. A correspondence would be opened.
        Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.
        The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was
        produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be
        voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as
        was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal
        government to such an extremity?
        James Madison, Federalist # 46

      • Charles Vincent

        To clarify it is not my position that the 2A was written to suppress slaves that is Andrew and poppa’s position. My position is apposed to that. I believe that is the disconnect between you and I Brian.

      • Brian

        I’m ammused how you keep citing evidence that actually goes against your position. That there were slave revolts in the north makes it even more unlikley that a Consittutional provision would be ratified that gives the slaves justification for violent revolt.

      • Charles Vincent

        And you are trying to reinterpret information to suit your limited ideology. Moreover the information I provided debunks the position you seem to have adopted.

      • Brian

        Your specious argumenst have debunked nothing

      • Charles Vincent

        The fact of the matter is that the Slave Power had not
        fully coalesced into a cohesive, dominant special interest by the time
        of the Constitution’s adoption. Opponents of the Constitution did of
        course sometimes use proslavery arguments, but this was hardly their
        primary concern, whether with respect to the Constitution generally or
        its militia clause specifically. And the change of the proposed Second
        Amendment’s wording from “free country” to “free State” is making a
        mountain of molehill. Hartmann doesn’t even get the story right, because
        as Bogus correctly reports, the change was made by the House committee,
        not by Madison.

        (The House committee reviewing Madison’s proposed Bill of Rights had
        11 members, one from each state. Madison was the representative from
        Virginia. There is no record of the committee’s deliberations. But since
        Madison had opposed creating the committee in the first place,
        preferring that the House consider the amendments directly, and since
        many of the members of the committee were initially opposed to a Bill of
        Rights, it is highly doubtful that Madison was responsible for the
        changed wording in ANY of the amendments as they were reported by the
        committee.)”

        And

        Bogus (Hartmann’s main source) is one of the prominent
        lawyers defending the collective-right theory of the Second Amendment.
        Constitutional lawyers generally write poor history, filled with special
        pleading (Leonard Levy being a notable exception), and especially when
        they write about the Second Amendment. Their biggest problem is that
        they know almost no genuine military history, and so their discussions
        of the militia are riddled with anachronistic errors.

        At the time of the Constitution’s adoption every state had a compulsory militia for most able-bodied males, which performed military and
        police functions not just in the South but in the North as well. The
        voluntarization of the militia did not occur in the northern states
        until the Jacksonian era, with Delaware, actually a slave state, being
        the first in 1831. Moreover, while the Constitution authorized
        nationalization of the militia, this was a contentious political issue,
        and all serious attempts to implement it with legislation were defeated
        in Congress until the Spanish-American War inspired passage of the Dick
        Act of 1902. Thus, Bogus’s claim that the Constitution embodied an
        immutable definition of the militia is utter rubbish.”

      • Brian

        This is just a word salad of random quotes without context or analysis.

      • Charles Vincent

        They directly pose a refutation of your assertion that the second amendment was written to suppress slaves. Hardly what you call it. Are you going to scream faux new talking points next?

      • Brian

        No, I’m going to scream that you lack reading comprehension. I never made the claim that the second amendment was written to suppress slaves. I made the claim that it was not written to support violent overthrow of the government. Please try to read in between your cut and paste jobs.

      • Charles Vincent

        Your comprehension is sorely lacking.

  • Jim Bean

    The second amendment was written by ex-British citizens who’d put themselves in a position to write it by using guns to overthrow their own government after they’d grown discontent with it.

    I find it impossible to believe anyone honestly believes they would deliberately create a mechanism designed to prevent them from repeating that exercise for liberty should the need arise again.

    And, as Mexico and the drug cartels have so eloquently demonstrated, the armed citizen has no need of conquering the governments army. They only need to represent a bona fide danger to pols, their families, and friends to keep them conscious of the will of the people.

    • Sam Brosenberg

      I find it impossible to believe anyone believes that the ruling elite of ANY country would willingly create a mechanism by which they and their descendants could be legally overthrown and deposed with violence. They were Aristocrats, they created a new country that they were in charge of, so why in God’s name would they then say “Yeah, but if you peasants feel like taking it away from us, feel free to do so!”

      • Politician

        If you read this writings of the founding fathers, that is exactly what they intended.

      • Nemisis

        “They were Aristocrats”
        They were far from aristocracy. They were literally the people. There were in some cases well off individuals and not a few statesmen. By far the majority were simply people.

        There should always be the thought, “What if the people that govern are no longer for the people.” That is why there should remain the thought that the 2nd was penned as it was to remove any doubt that the people should maintain a state of freedom. If you read the Federalist Papers you will gain insight into the thoughts behind the words of the Constitution

        One of the things that stand out to me regarding the 2nd amendment was the discussion on how large the military should be. There was a maximum size discussed so that the military could never be an effective force used to subjugate the masses. There was also debate on if there should be an inner circle of officers tasked with deliberate disobedience and betrayal should the government ever try to turn against the constitution or the people. These papers are post war and predate ratification of the Constitution.
        They were published and were written by the “Aristocracy” you mentioned. The papers are easily googled and are available to read in their entirety for free.

      • Cemetery Girl

        The founding fathers were generally as close to aristocrats as the Colonies got. We were an agricultural society and much of the population was illiterate. By our standards many of the founding fathers were simple, but for their time period they were not. They were educated, those that made their living through agriculture held very large expanses of land, they lived in a greater luxery than the average Colonist.

      • Nemisis

        That is sorta the point. The average colonist is what won the war. Not the Aristocrat. That does not take away their contribution, which was not small. They did however differ greatly from what we would consider today’s aristocracy in that they considered everyday people to be on par with themselves.
        In importance as people. Their writings convey that more often than not.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Their writings show they were forward thinkers. If they had been a different sort of men, yet still having the wealth, education, and influence they could have easily become the American royalty. When you look at them in the context of their time they were radicals with a greater compassion towards the public. An idea that sounds absurd considering the standing of women during that era and the treatment of slaves and Native Americans. They were the products of their era though, considering we still have people that believe everyone else is inferior to a white man and that was the social belief of their time we can’t be too shocked.

      • Nemisis

        I enjoy reading their writings as it like a window looking into the past. Having read the works they penned it gives a better understanding to the depth of thought put into their combined works such as the DOI and our Constitution. I enjoy reading the debates the most. I agree that if they had more self interest the American ideological landscape would be much different. Reading the journals of the commanding officers and soldiers of the era can reveal why and how the treatment of Indians became the way did.
        Comparing them to the journals of ordinary people on the frontiers, I see a general theme of caution, cooperation and eventually violence. Usually due to external influence of a nefarious nature.
        Hindsight is 20/20 however looking back over 200 years with the ability to draw information from everywhere…Amazing.

      • Cemetery Girl

        It is easier to look back and see how things should have been different. I don’t understand how some people find history boring. I think it’s fascinating to learn how people lived, what was happening. There are parallels. If you know about the past you can have insight into why people do what they do and it can suggest how things are going to happen in the present. This goes for in general and specifically. You can understand your family better if you know about history (general history and family history). For example, one branch of my family, most of the people don’t like water or know how to swim, but you can trace it back to over 100 years ago we had an ancestor that had a child die by drowning so the rest of the children were taught to fear water, and they taught that to their children, and it continued on.

      • Charles Vincent

        199. As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.

        John Locke Second treatise on government.

        Our founding fathers drew on lockers works among others to create the constitution.

      • 11bravo

        ” I find it impossible to believe anyone believes that the ruling elite of ANY country would willingly create a mechanism by which they and their descendants could be legally overthrown and deposed with violence.”
        This is because these aristocrats were statesmen who believed in the absolute freedom and liberty of the individual. They believed this to their core.
        I doubt you could find a politician today that holds any belief that deeply. That is the reason you find it impossible to believe.
        Jefferson was a rich 33 year old land owner with 3 children – yet if he were ever caught he would be hung on the spot. The founders would give all they had to the proposition of individual freedom and liberty. Some did. You don’t hear much about all those the British hung by their necks.

    • Nemisis

      That is a very bad analogy of the will of the people. Yet a very good example of what happens when a government becomes corrupted, coupled with very strict gun control and the unwillingness of the cartels to abide by those restrictions and the unlikeliness that local authorities will do anything about the cartels lack of concern of the laws.

  • xnerd

    I have been a big fan of Allen Clifton for years now. I have to say I totally disagree with you on this one.

    let me start by saying I am totally FOR STRONG, STRICT and smart gun control laws. I think that anyone that is against firearm regulation is no useing their head.

    Have said that, I would like to address one thing… Armed revolt. The notion that you claim is ridiculous is absolutely sound and sane. If you don’t think that 300 million people could take on our armed forces then I don’t know what to say. For one, it is to be assumed that if things got bad enough, military people would be on the same page as the would be rebels.

    Secondly our armed forces are not in a good position to fight against an armed uprising. they are sort of surrounded. We know where they are, and they haven’t a clue where we are. If it came down to it, again I dont think that the people (being in the right) would face much opposition. I dont think that most solders would find it tasteful killing their fellows. It wouldn’t take a very high percentage of decent to collapse the militaries ability to be a functioning force. I believe that it their would be a very high degree of decent in these times.

    Again, In my mind emphasis needs to be placed on the term Well Regulated. Im all for it! But i do think that a key aspect to the second was to allow people the security of protecting itself from a government gone wrong.

    Reasonable minds may disagree,.

    • Jerry Graybosch

      It says, ….militia being necessary for the defense of the STATE……not protection of individuals from the state. It was a way to make an army available if needed. Individuals feeling oppressed by government have multiple ways to see those grievances addressed…none of them involve armed rebellion….ask Mr. Shay.

      • Nemisis

        “State” has many definitions and uses. The actual words used in the 2nd amendment are ” the security of a free State “.
        That “free state” could mean the conceptual condition of freedom as in a state of mind or a state of well-being, or the it could mean the individual states that make up the union.

        The use of security has a few meanings as well.

        Defense is not exclusive nor excluded.

        Which ever meaning you take here the important thing to remember is that freedom is never free and security is never defenseless, and our Constitution had provided for civil redress of the elected.

    • polliwogg

      300 million? When the shit hits the fan, I doubt you could come up with an organized 300 DOZEN.

      • Nemisis

        Yar matey… The Michigan Militia number 10,000 strong.
        There be a great many militia that number beyond 3,600.

    • Nemisis

      The Constitution has included things that the people can do to redress our government should our government get out of hand.
      Even our military oath is Constitution first country second.

      I believe that the “well regulated” refers to the ability of the people to form a militia and train as such. Not so much as the number of laws pertaining to weapons. There would no doubt be more in the Constitution pertaining to guns if that was the intended meaning of “well regulated”. Instead the Constitution goes on to say the “right of the people” and then specifically says “arms” thereby not limiting the amendment to guns at all but all forms of weapons. Lastly “infringed” is a reference to laws that restrict or prohibit the prior “right of the people”.

      To clarify, I believe that if a person could afford to buy, arm and fly their very own f-15 then they should be able to.
      I can think of only a few people that could actually do that.

      I do not think that there are enough laws governing weapon ownership. I think that people who want to own weapons should be required to qualify on the specific weapon they want to own.
      Rather or not they actually intend to purchase the weapon is up to them. Examples already exist in law. The requirement of drivers licenses with different classifications. Those classes limit your legal ability to drive a given vehicle in a given weight and length and purpose. So a requirement to qualify in order own and use a m243 machine gun would be different from qualifying for a colt 1911 or a rapier.

      I do agree that our military would be hard pressed to fight against it’s own. That said however if the military is not convinced that the people are in the right they would defend the government because of it’s oath. I don’t know about you, but my oath was not taken lightly. Even though my bones are old now I would still defend my nation.

      • Sandy Greer

        In Principle, I agree. I do wonder at a seeming discrepancy:

        If 2A “shall not be infringed”

        ^^^How does that square with your statement:

        >I do not think that there are enough laws governing weapon ownership

        ^^^You go on to list what you’d like (regulations à la cars, etc) I’ve argued similar – but seen argued cars are not ‘rights’ (à la guns) I also note friends have told me regulations in New York (for instance) make it so onerous – one is hard-pressed to acquire a gun legally.

      • Nemisis

        The short answer is this.
        Weapon education is an important aspect of ownership. An instruction course in gun safety is a must. A demonstrable knowledge of a given weapon is critical to it’s proper use.
        That is why I used drivers licensing as an example. There are different types. most people have a regular classification that lets them drive vehicles up-to a certain weight.
        A Chauffeurs is needed for taxi, bus etc… and Commercial is needed for most trucking.
        However a Hazmat is needed in addition to a commercial when transporting hazardous material.
        That said, a handgun is different from a rifle and a rifle is different from a shotgun.
        Each are guns but they each require different training.

        As for New York…they banned soft drinks over 16 ounces…
        On the other hand. Chicago has some of the most restrictive handgun laws in the nation and is the number one handgun crime ridden city. Just imagine how bad it would be if there were no gun laws there.

        These proposed changes to “gun control” do not restrict the right to own or keep and bear arms. They merely are designed to educate the would be owner in proper safety.
        Then they can go own a gun. A sad example of gun education is the 9 year old girl given an uzi to shoot. By the range instructor.
        That angers me because had the instructor not violated the range policy, He would still be alive, and that little girl would still be a little girl. Education. Licensing.

      • 11bravo

        ” An instruction course in gun safety is a must. A demonstrable knowledge of a given weapon is critical to it’s proper use.”
        Where is the instruction course for the first amendment? The fourth? Abortion? Medical Care? Education?
        See where it all falls apart. Rights are Rights – period!

      • Nemisis

        Let’s not wander off topic here.
        Your questions are valid just off point.
        Discussing the 2A does not mean the others are any less critical.

        I contend that without the 2A the others are unattainable. Without the 1st, the 2nd is not even heard.

        Rights, are kept till lost by demonstration of disregard for the rights of others.

      • Sandy Greer

        Thanks for keeping it short. 😉 But you still haven’t ‘squared’ it.

        I know the difference between classes of drivers licenses. Know the difference between (some) guns.

        But if we believe 2A “shall not be infringed” –
        How can we believe there are not “enough laws governing weapon ownership”?

        Some states it’s almost impossible to get a permit/license. We can laugh about 16oz soft drinks – doesn’t change the fact some find it difficult to acquire a gun legally.

        Again, I don’t disagree (in theory) I just see a dichotomy there. And have come to believe Rights are Rights.

        Finally – Thank You! – for your defense of our military. You know the one I mean. I saw what you did there. Hard to go against Group Think. I’ve great respect for those who walk their own path. Kudos to you, Sir Nemisis.

      • Nemisis

        I should clarify…Perhaps it is not that there are enough laws. Maybe, more accurately, it is that there are not enough pertinent laws, and too many that try to over-regulate and micro-regulate guns.
        Those laws that have little to do with actual ownership and more to do with obstruction while not being prohibitive do place undue burden on the citizens.

        I have said; background checks, to prevent those who have lost the right to own keep and bear, or those without the mental capacity as determined by mental health professionals I agree with. To do so otherwise is just inviting danger. Of course a criminal will get a gun if the criminal wants one, and a unsecured weapon picked up by the unstable could become problematic as well.

        I do recognize the difficulty some have in obtaining ownership in certain regions. Conversely in some regions it is very easy to obtain a weapon and very nonrestrictive. A few years ago while on a cross country trip, camping along the Lewis and Clark Trail, my son and I would stop in really remote places for some indoor-sit-down-food. One of my favorite places was a town with one restaurant.
        It served as the bar, the town hall, and gunsmith.
        The sign on the wall read “Please check your long arms.” meaning rifles. The patrons wore side arms and they looked to me like I was nuts. I was asked…”where is your side arm?” They were concerned that I was concealing.

        I will continue to mull over your questions as they do warrant a considered response. I am leaning more towards relevant laws rather than more.
        Thank you for your comments.

    • Alex

      nowhere near 300 million people would be rebels, there’s only 300 million people in the whole country, subtracting the very old and very young, those with medical conditions which would keep them from fighting, and of course, you only subtract that from the half of the country that didn’t vote for who this rebellion is against, and you are vastly outnumbered in your rebellion. also, what possibly makes you think that the military would be on the side of the rebels, or in other words, the side of treasonous terrorists? part of your oath when you join the armed forces is to protect america against all threats foreign AND DOMESTIC.
      your logic is based on a rebellion where every single american wants to rebel (which there’s no way in hell that a government was elected without any of those votes), is capable to do so, and based on the idea that the military members will ignore their oath, ignore their superior officers, ignore the vastly superior fire power of their superior officers, and ignore the threat of life in military prison for attempting to revolt.
      a reasonable mind has disagreed with you.

      • fifthdentist

        I agree with your post, and the part about the young, the old and those who voted for the other side was a point I was going to make.
        A quibble I would have is that the members of the armed forces take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the president and superior officers.
        It’s pretty straightforward and leaves no wiggle room for joining with revolutionary militias to overthrow the government. In Nazi Germany, Hitler had the oath changed so that soldiers swore a personal oath to him, and his officers — with very rare exceptions — honored that oath.
        The U.S. Constitution allows for removing a tyrannical president. And every two years the people are allowed to vote on all 535 House members and a third of the Senate.
        In the event we had a president who, like Hitler, suspended voting once in power and tried to make the armed forces his or her personal military, that could trigger some kind of revolt, as the promise to protect the Constitution would be the duty of the military.

        As for the original poster, xnerd, to whom you responded: Knowing where our soldiers are is not much help, because they’re in well-defended bases with tanks and artillery and lots of other high-tech gizmos. Not to mention the Air Force’s capabilities.
        Just, for the sake of argument, say that a rebel force was able to neutralize the entire U.S. Air Force, giving them a somewhat better position against ground forces; the second-largest air force in the world, after the U.S. Air Force, is the Navy’s carrier fleet.

        The answer to fighting a despotic government here is not a military one. It is having a sufficiently educated, informed and active citizenry who can select the right leaders.
        And those leaders are not those such as House candidate Mark Walker of North Carolina, who, during a June speech said that he supports “court-martialing” (sic) President Obama.
        We need people educated enough to realize that there are no FEMA camps into which presidential enemies have been disappearing for the past five years. That the president was not born in Kenya and is not the love child of Louis Farrakhan. That Michelle Obama is not a transsexual. That we had two democratic elections in which Obama won and they lost.
        And most importantly: That nothing Obama has done comes anywhere within a million light years of being of the degree that it would demand an armed rebellion.
        Not to say that there are not concerns of the growth of presidential power, but that has been happening for decades, mostly because Congress has allowed it to happen.

      • 11bravo

        Most “educated” and “informed” citizens know progressivism is socialism = evil!
        Socialism does not work anywhere – everyone knows this. Do you think Medicaid-Medicare-SSI- and welfare are working? They are going, or are bankrupt!!

      • Quhyung Park

        Scandinavia, despite having flaws, would like to disagree with you on socialism. Most Republicans would disagree with you that welfare doesn’t work. They want very limited welfare, but they still want welfare nonetheless. So does pretty much every developed country.

      • 11bravo

        ” to protect america against all threats foreign AND DOMESTIC”.
        and if the domestic enemy is the federal government, does the oath still apply?
        Also, the government would lose with only 5 million Americans under arms. Who do you think makes up the “military”? Every single military operation against citizens would be compromised by loyal Americans at all levels of military service.
        All the might in the world can not overcome this fact. Any General worth a dang would tell you that – that’s why no country has attempted to invade mainland America.

      • Quhyung Park

        Britain invaded mainland America in 1812. Britain didn’t win, but it didn’t necessarily lose- it was more of a draw. No country has ever attempted to invade mainland Japan since the Mongol invasions, and their gun ownership rate is extremely low. You are ignoring the fact that the U.S. military is overwhelming superior to all other militaries, that the U.S. economy is overwhelmingly larger than all other economies, and that any country that tries to invade the U.S. will have its economy crumbled and its population decimated by a wave of American bombs.

    • Kien Tran

      In a country of 300 million people there are not going to 300 million rebels. You’re assuming they’re all on the same side. This is what’s wrong with that whole line of logic is that they automatically believe that everyone will agree with them and civil-wars are never so cut and dry. The Revolution was really our first civil war and estimates are that only about 30% were for the eventual winning side. What is more certain is that the military will fracture and that will determine the true uprising.

      Let’s now consider the idea that rebels are completely invisible and have an advantage over army regulars. This may be true in theory but do you think that will always be the case against a well trained military that’s been fighting guerrillas and insurgents for the last 60 years?

    • Cemetery Girl

      The problem is assuming that a majority proportion of the US would agree with revolting. Some areas might heavily support revolt, others would heavily support allegiance. The US Civil War is a solid example of this. Southern states succeeded, Northern did not, yet both sides had sympathizers in their midst. North and South there were people willing to act as spies or engage in activities that aided the side opposing where they lived. Both sides had some citizens that did not actively try to support the other side, but disagreed with the attitudes of their community and opted not to participate. One just can’t assume that nationwide there would be a large majority that would agree to revolt.

  • Jim Bean

    Allen, its obvious that you want to modify the way the 2nd Amendment has been historically interpreted. At least have the courtesy to stop talking to us like you think we’re a bunch of historically-challenged idiots.

    • Sam Brosenberg

      Most Americans ARE historically-challeneged idiots, so it’s not really an unreasonable assumption for him to make. We teach American History in a fundamentally dishonest and deceptive way in this country, so it’s not really surprising that most Americans have no fucking clue about anything that happened before they were born.

      • Nemisis

        Well put.

    • Brian

      I wish we would go with historical interpretation, which never gave the 2nd Amendment the presnet scope.

      • Charles Vincent

        Speaking of the historically challenged, here’s your sign.

      • Brian

        and for the intelligence challenged, here is your sign

  • Jerry Graybosch

    The founders overthrew the British government because they felt ( as expressed in the Declaration) they had no choice…no other way to secure their liberty. They replaced it with a system that was very careful to provide multiple avenues for preventing government from oppressing them. They are the system of checks and balances among the branches, elections and representation of citizens in the legislature, due process through a court system, and an impeachment process. Personal feelings of individual founders aside, the second amendment is there ( as it clearly says ) to secure the defense of the state ( not to protect individuals) , and anyone who wages armed revolution based on it is simply operating outside the Constitution…committing treason.

    • Charles Vincent

      You’re omitting the second part of that second amendment. Secondly we have the right to alter or abolish the said constitution and create a new one that more closely attends to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We do not need the governments permission or approval to do so. We the people vest our power in them and we can rescind it when and where we so choose to do so.

      • poppaDavid

        Yes, and there is a process in the Constitution for doing that. Care to read it? Hint: it doesn’t involve guns.

      • Charles Vincent

        The constitution doesn’t exclude their use either. And your premise excludes the fact that the people writing it used weapons to overthrow a government when all other options were denied to them, and that they wouldn’t safe guard that option to their posterity.

      • poppaDavid

        Actually it does. Article III, Section 3 “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

        And note, it doesn’t say war “against the Constitution” it says “against the United States” which IS the government established by the Constitution.

        It is great to apply personal opinions, but sometimes you should actually read the words. And since the question of “who gets to interpret the words” was addresses by the Founding Fathers in the first years of our nation we know that Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the words. Not arm-chair lawyers.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s your ill informed opinion the federalist papers say different.

        If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left
        but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive
        forms of government
        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 28

        and

        But ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the State
        governments would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only.
        They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common
        cause. A correspondence would be opened.
        Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.
        The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was
        produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be
        voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as
        was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal
        government to such an extremity?
        James Madison, Federalist # 46

      • Stephen Barlow

        The Federalist Papers are not in the Constitution.

      • Stephen Barlow

        excellent. David prisoner of war against the United States governments Constitution it’s a shame so many Republicans went to school and I never learn to read

      • Matthew Reece

        It isn’t treason if the rebels win.

      • poppaDavid

        It is still qualifies as treason against the losing government. It just won’t be tried or punished. Unless you are Trotsky, then you lose anyway.

      • Stephen Barlow

        actually it does on the insurrection is treason punishable by death

      • Greg Ranzoni

        And what if those processes and checks are omitted or bypassed? Bush jr lied us into a war and wasn’t impeached, Obama stoned walled on a blown arms investigation that got a border guard killed, Reagan sold guns to Iran and funded a bloody civil war in Central America and nothing happened to him

      • poppaDavid

        Again the word “treason” appears multiple times in the Constitution and it names a process for dealing with it. Where the process is defined in the Constitution any outside process, especially one that involves war, is against the Constitution.

        The fact that I am angry about Bush getting away with taking our country into war on false pretenses doesn’t change our Constitution. We have a peaceful method of addressing the issues. Those who turn their back that the process, turn their back on the Constitution.

        Martin Luther King had an alternate process that didn’t “make war on the United States” and his movement did affect necessary changes. More so than the riots and burnings of that time.

      • Stephen Barlow

        but you do need a majority and to like you are not the majority

    • Stephen Barlow

      exactly prison is actual action taken to overthrow the government sedition is trying to talk to people in the overthrow of the government Republicans in Congress are guilty of sedition so are people like Charles Manson Jim Beam disorder in character I don’t understand what crimes are committed a ignorance is just freaking simple

    • sean

      Ok, first point which totally negates your supposition, the bill of rights spells out the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, NOT the state. That is why it clearly states “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS”. Also, since the “state” at that time referred to each individual state, not the federal army, because each state had their own militia units made up of ordinary citizens. Hence, since most every able bodied man was in the militia(and according to U.S. Title code, we still are), having individuals ready to “bear arms” for the state regulated militia is necessary for the freedom of the state. The founders were very worried about a powerful federal(standing) army being formed. The best defense against this was for the INDIVIDUAL to be able to bear arms against any enemy to the individual state and its freedom, either foreign or domestic, through the “well-regulated” state militia. Hence the reason it was worded the way it was.

      • Jerry Graybosch

        I am not saying the right is not an individual right…just that the rationale for it was to protect the security of the country/state…NOT individuals with a grudge. So we do not disagree on that. Your point comes down to the use of the term “state” in the context of the amendment. Did they mean whole country, each former colony, ….or maybe both? Was the purpose to protect states from the federal government, from one another, or ( as united states) from outside enemies? In any case, I don’t think you can argue it is to protect individuals from the federal government ( or from the state governments). Certainly they were rightly (.based on experience at the hands of the British) afraid of having a powerful standing army, but they recognized the potential to occasionally need one. It was to act under authority and command of the federal government ( not states) but staffed with members of state militias if necessary. Article 4 gives the federal government responsibility for protecting the states…it doesn’t say they should each rely just on their own militia. And certainly if enough states shared the same differences with the federal govt, they would have substantial political power to make change within the Constitution. The idea of potentially using state militias ( as alternative to “legal” means ) against the federal government may have occurred to some, but the possibility or legitimacy of it was not laid out….it would negate the concept of “united” states. And we see what happened some 70 years later when some of them tried and it was deemed illegal.

  • Avatar

    Oh by the irony, these 2nd amendment-loving ammosexuals always love to carry small book of U.S. Constitutions in their butt pockets.

    • Nemisis

      ammosexuals…really just wandering around coming up with sound bites? Do you know why there is still a gun debate?

      I’ll give you a clue. it started when the last shot of the revolution was fired and the people kept their guns. When the constitution declared the people get to keep their guns and when the troops failed to collect all the guns. The debate is over 200 years old.

      Think of this. Without the 2a of what use are any of the others?
      How could any of the other amendments be maintained, or enforced?
      Without the second, we would be a theocracy at best and a corporate state at worst. The police would not exist as all that would be handled by the military. The military’s prime directive would be to stave off any insurrection from within.

      • Jess L Calloway

        We already have a corporate state. If the repukes had their way it would be a theocracy.I don’t have a problem with the 2nd amendment. The truth is it has been hijacked. People who believe they can fight the federal military. Grandaddy’s shotgun against a Abrams or Apache. Really? Or ammosexuals( the gun is a penis) walking around with assault rifles. Nobody needs an assault rifle, to go to Target.

      • Nemisis

        I think a penis is a penis and a gun is gun.

        To think of gun as simply an extension of the penis is the crutch of a weak argument. Is it a penis because people perceive the gun as more macho? Or is that statement meant to ridicule the concept that self-defense begins with one self? I know a great many women that own guns. Does that mean they own a gun due to penis envy?

        As for armed rebellion and what could someone with just a rifle do against a tank.
        Syria. Iraq. Iran. Ireland. Bosnia, Ukraine…
        I’ll stop there. All those countries have something in common. The rebellions started with only a rifle. Well in the case of Iraq, 1 handgun, six rounds and poof Hussein is the ruler.(vintage rebellion)

        It has little to with what you are fighting against and everything to do with how you fight with what you have.

      • Jess L Calloway

        America is not Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ireland, Bosnia, Ukraine…. Do we need to go into the power of the U.S military? The only global super power. This idea of over-throwing the U.S government by citizens is folly and treason. The term ammosexual refers to mostly males that are obsessed with guns. The philosophy of open-carry and assault weapons. They generally are anti-intellectual, anti-government and extreme about the 2nd amendment.

      • Nemisis

        Only global superpower? That’s debatable.
        I understand what ammosexual was applying and it’s intended usage. I just find it to be one those “Look I made a cute conjunction of words to try and shame people” words. It shows only a lack of intellectual commitment. The power of a military power of a nation has nothing to do with what it can do against it’s own people. I cite every revolution ever. As grounds for my prior statement. Sure there are some that failed, however the majority of revolutions that are successful are the direct result of the military NOT wanting to fight it’s own people.
        (sorry for the caps text formatting limits…)

      • Jess L Calloway

        I agree with you 100%. The whole 2nd amendment debate has been corrupted. Gun nuts, assault rifles, and open carry. The NRA has not helped at all. People who are sensible about gun regulation, assault rifle controls, and anybody who brings up concerns about open-carry are labeled extreme by the right and left. No reasonable voices or arguments are heard.

      • Nemisis

        The NRA is actually fighting the manufacturer making bio-locked safe guns. Guns that can not be fired unless the owner is holding it.
        It’s reasons like that that make me wanna slap someone in the head to check for hollowness.

      • Sandy Greer

        Some states have laws on the books that – once smart guns are sold anywhere in the state:

        Only smart guns may be sold. None other.

        Goes back to those pertinent vs. micro-regulatory laws you spoke to earlier.

    • strayaway

      What bothers you more, that they possess a copy of the Constitution or that they keep it in their back pocket? if the latter, would it be more acceptable, fashion wise, if they kept it in their breast pocket like Dennis Kucinich always did?

  • DWS

    What this article seems to be missing, is that fact that for democracy to work, we need a media of TV and newspapers that are unbiased, and can therefore present reliable information on which voters can make reliable decisions on who to vote for. What we have now, is a mainstream media that has been bough by the oligarchy, and presents an extremely narrow view, and often presents blatent lies as truth, in order to subvert the voter.

    This is not democracy – because most people have a worldview that is based on the information they get from these sources, so if the information is wrong, then their worldview is wrong.

    It is obvious that voting doesn’t work anymore anyway – other we would have got rid of Citizens United, and GMOs would be labelled. What are the options when they just say no, just do what we tell you?

    The first thing Hitler did before starting wars was diarm the public – if there was no hope of defending yourself against the might of the military, then that would have been uneccessary.

  • Politician

    Allen, this rant make you come off as crazy as the right wing nuts that you constantly condem.

    • strayaway

      More like one of those raving paranoid schizophrenic guys with the long stringy hair in a downtown park.

  • Overthrow the Government;
    Someone please ask them: And replace it with what?

    • Charles Vincent

      A government that protects person, property and liberty. You know that thing the founders tried to do.

    • 11bravo

      Keep it the same, just draw the new (initial) representatives by random lottery. To include federal judges.
      You couldn’t do much worse than the traders holding office now – both parties.

  • Brian

    quicker path to the same point: Slavery existed at the time the amendment was written. Done.

    • 11bravo

      Most everyone who could afford it owned slaves. All countries took territory by conquest. All races have been enslaved by their own race, and others. Even anti slavery Americans believed blacks inferior – it was common knowledge.
      There is a perfectly logical (non-racist) reason for the fact that blacks and Latino’s have lower IQ’s than whites – do you know why?

      • Brian

        Though your comment is irrelevant to the point at hand I’ll bite and tell you that no there is not a non-racist reason.

  • Andrew Morris

    Most of the people who are Second Amendment activists usually haven’t read the Constitution, nor can answer basic questions about it. But it’s no surprise when most of these people can’t think for themselves.

    • Charles Vincent

      Neither have you or jerry just above. You nor he have a clue as to what the folders thought or laid out and who they drew on to create our government.

      • Stephen Barlow

        and you know because you misread, misuse and misrepresented and misunderstood the Federalist Papers?

      • Charles Vincent

        Wait I thought you were ignoring me… referenced here;
        “SO from now on, the ONLY response you will ever get from me is:
        IGGY.
        You are not persona non grata, you do NOT EVEN EXIST.”

        That makes you a liar(you’re not ignoring me) and you’re responding to a post i made to someone else, and finally you lack even the simple dignity of following through with your aforementioned “promise” way to be a complete failure Stephen.

      • poppaDavid

        The Federalist Papers provided arguments for accepting the proposed United States Constitution. Once adopted, the Constitution provided a method for determining who would judge the words of the Constitution and that method was been followed. That Constitutional method determined that the United States Supreme Court would decide the meaning of the words of the Constitution.

        We didn’t adopt the Federalist Papers, we adopted the Constitution. And the Constitution doesn’t reference them. It also doesn’t require that we reference them.

        Knowing what the proponents of the Constitution “INTENDED” is interesting. Knowing what the Supreme Court says about the meaning of the Constitution is the “LAW”. Do you claim to follow the Constitution or some other documents?

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong again the federalist and anti federalist papers are key to understanding the constitution, and when the government breaks the law they are acting in an unconstitutional manner and subject to what ever consequences the people deem necessary. Your lack of knowledge is only surpassed by the vacuous space between your ears.
        Conclusion no amount of factual and historical proof will help you see the truth of what the founders intended when they codified the constitution and the declaration of independence, good day.

      • poppaDavid

        Nice touch with the insults. You must not trust your arguments.

        You write “the founders intended” as if the founders all shared a single understanding of the meaning of the words in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers and Anti-federalist papers show that they didn’t.

        You appear to believe that the understanding of the three men who wrote the Federalist Papers overrules the clear text of the Constitution as it was adopted by the legislatures of thirteen states.

        I will try to reduce the complexity for you. The Constitution says that making war against the United States is treason. It says that the Supreme Court has judicial power. No where does it say that you have the authority to turn to outside documents to overturn the clear meaning of the text to justify treason.

      • Charles Vincent

        And you fail to understand those three wrote the constitution. You also cannot compute that government is a creation of people the people hold that charter and can revoke it anytime for any reason. Moreover you disregard a plethora of historical documentation to the contrary of your position. Lastly I do not think you fully understand what the constitution is or how it operates. Whether that is willful ignorance or not is up for debate.

      • poppaDavid

        Those three “wrote the Constitution”? I am sure that information would surprise Rutledge (chair), Ellsworth, Gorham, Randolph, and Wilson— who wrote the first draft, and the other members of the fifty-five member Constitutional Convention who all had their input.

        You are correct that the people may revoke the Constitution at any time for any reason. Realize that the method is described in Article V. Perhaps you could read the original source rather than creating your illusion from other documents.

        You want to justify violent revolution. The Constitution isn’t your source.

      • Charles Vincent

        I know others were involved that was not my point. My point was in regard to the fact you try to marginalize them in an attempt to refute an argument. They played a prominent role in the drafting of the constitution and it was Madison that Wrote the second amendment.

        You presume that operating through the constitution is the only way this is can happen fundamentally incorrect you equate a revolution to the tearing down of the constitution when in fact it is the tearing down of a government that isn’t following the constitution. a government that does not follow the constitution is an enemy of the state and of the the people Locke knew that and so did the framers of the constitution.

      • poppaDavid

        No. The founding fathers had experienced thirteen years of negotiations with England to attempt to peacefully resolve their problems before the Declaration of Independence. They had lived through five years of a harsh war. As a whole they were not interested in another violent revolution or the war that follows.

        The founding fathers knew that there was an alternative to revolution as a means of changing government. In 1777 the Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation to establish a national government. The citizens and states recognized the need for fundamental change. Did they start a revolution? No, in 1887 the founding fathers gathered peacefully in Convention to change government.

        If someone wants to KNOW how the founding fathers would deal with a non-functional government, look at what they DID do to change governments in 1787. They even included the definition of treason in the document in case someone couldn’t figure it out.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes they did and when all avenues were denied them the revolted and some how you seem to think they wouldn’t allow for that in the constitution. You sir are blind.
        Again I reiterate what Hamilton and Madison spoke of in the federalist papers;
        If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left
        but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive
        forms of government
        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 28

        and

        But ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the State
        governments would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only.
        They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common
        cause. A correspondence would be opened.
        Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.
        The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was
        produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be
        voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as
        was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal
        government to such an extremity?
        James Madison, Federalist # 46

      • Charles Vincent

        Also here in federalist 46
        But ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the State
        governments would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only.
        They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common
        cause. A correspondence would be opened.
        Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.
        The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was
        produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be
        voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as
        was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?
        James Madison, Federalist # 46

      • Charles Vincent

        You seem to think the framers didn’t draw upon what others had written or pattern the constitution on those things. you would be incorrect

        If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government

        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 28

        “The rulers … exercising a power the people never put into their hands (who can never be supposed to consent, that anybody should rule over them for their harm), do that, which they have not a right to do. And where the body of the people, or any single man, is deprived of their right, or is under the exercise
        of a power without right, then they have a liberty to appeal to heaven, whenever they judge the
        cause of sufficient moment.” (Chapter 14, sec. 159)

        “… whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience … [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they
        shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.” (Chapter 19, sec. 222)

        “But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the
        design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel, what they lie under, and whither they are going, ’tis not to be wondered, that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands, which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first enacted.” (Chapter 19, sec. 225)

        John Locke second treatise

    • sean

      actually, its the people who are against it that seem to follow your description. Most, if not all, have never read the document or what the founders wrote about it.

  • Bea

    The said rebellion has been going on for years and so far no guns have been used. However money has — buying politians votes, changing voting districts, scarring people about non existing voter fraud, to name a few weapons of this rebellion!!!! At lease in this particular instance they (whoever they are) are not willing to put boots on the ground and use their guns (as one way to state it — a phrase used often today)!!!

  • Nemisis

    Allen, please read the Federalist Papers.

    • Charles Vincent

      You better narrow that down a bit and send him a thesaurus so he can translate the vernacular.

      • Nemisis

        Allen’s a smart guy. I’m sure he can figure it out.

  • Eg Kbbs

    Somehow I wonder if the guy who shot the troopers in PA isn’t being praised as a “good guy with a gun” and “exercising his 2nd Amendment Rights.”

  • Roberticus

    and you shall be dumbed down, sickened, brainwashed, and tricked to believe you are free, when the truth is so far the opposite. We will force you to accept and ingest our genetically modified food, even though we know it is dangerously unhealthy and a probable carcinogen, we shall ‘suicide’ those too close to the truth of 9/11 and not print nor repeat the real facts, we shall enter wars on invented wmds, Iraq, we shall supply arms to our future enemies, ISSIS. We shall force your children to play Russian roulette with vaccines and autism, yes the CDC has proof they cause autism. A recent whistleblower from the CDC has come forward; what you never heard of it? I wonder why? We shall control all mass media for our covert and overt brainwashing purposes. If we leave it out of the news it never happened. You shall support the global petrochemical cabal your whole life, even though free energy systems and inventions have been coming out since Tesla. Stanley Meyer, Gashole (documentary hulu). The Federal Reserve is a private banking system, essentially owned by a global international elite, headed by the Rothschild family and its ilk. (The Money Masters is a good start) Many ‘natural cures’ for cancer have been discovered, we just can’t sell them here as they will never make it to clinical trials as the whole process has been controlled by the AMA and the pharmacuetical companies at the University level for a long time…look this shit up and tell me your free, do me a favor and read shit that isn’t from the same brainwashers you’ve been listening to all along. They used to say the Council on Foreign Relations never existed……

  • Charles Vincent

    Your article is a logical fallacy argument that assumes only the way you lay it out is true that is an incorrect argument and poor assumption on your part.

  • Greg Ranzoni

    The who argument could be settled on the 2nd admendment being rewritten in more concise language.

  • 11bravo

    How old is AL – like 17?
    This is exactly the reason the second amendment is in the constitution.
    Try to remember AL, the states created the federal government – mainly, to take care of foreign issues and treaties. To be the body to speak for the states as ONE. Also, to maintain a protective military force for our country, and settle disputes between the states when they arise – and not much else was entrusted to a “federal” government. No one since the 1600’s has trusted government.

  • 11bravo

    If we repeal citizens united are we going to also make it so unions, the sierra club-code pink, OFA, and CAP can not donate either? No foreign donations from Geo Soros?
    Just wondering.

  • 11bravo

    I believe it says specifically in our DECLARATION of independence from a tyrannical government, governing us at the time – it becomes necessary to remove it by force (or in so many words). So much for research AL.

    ” 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”.
    Alter, or abolish, pretty open ended to me. “By force” would fall into this in my view.

  • Eruanion Nolaquen

    When one considers that many of those who tout the second amendment only consider guns as arms, and ignore parts of it in the mistaken belief that it applies to a branch of the military, then one can conclude that our military is a militia. The line ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” Is NOT about the National Guard, as they now fall under the heading of a military unit, meaning, since our military IS volunteers, that it would apply to them as well. Militia has always been private citizens, who are asked to fight, having no formal chain of command, and who agree to volunteer. and, like the yeoman archers of old, are responsible for their own training.
    The other part, about Arms, includes other weapons, so until you defend the right of all citizens to carry swords, crossbows and switchblades, don’t ask me to defend your right to carry a gun.

  • Matthew Reece

    Violently overthrowing a democratic government only makes sense if those who do it intend to permanently abolish statism in their part of the world. After all, spending large amounts of blood and treasure only to replace one criminal enterprise with another is a terrible waste.

  • Masmani

    Hey Allen Clifton, Do you think the BLM backed down at Bundy because they were afraid of killing more desert tortioses?

  • Bert Benson

    It’s not that you are ignorant it’s just you know so much that isn’t so. You are probably right though; the very thought of a superpower, like the USA or USSR, having its government toppled by an uprising of common citizens is so moronic. What are these conservative simpletons thinki. . . . . .? Russia? Are you sure? You mean the whole shootin match? Well I’ll be a son of a Soviet Socialist! Big Al looks like you and Big Boris are on your own.