So You Believe Guns Give Us The Right to Overthrow Our Government? Congrats, You’re a Traitor

teapartygunnutWhen the gun debate gets brought up, the group of people that often make me laugh the most are those who believe our Second Amendment is meant to keep the “government fearful of its citizens.”  They’ll cite all these historic dictators and their insistence on very strict gun laws—while ignoring the many current free nations which also have very strict laws on gun ownership.



These people honestly believe we were given the right to “bear arms” so that, if need be, we could rise up and overthrow our government.

Well if that’s true, then what’s with that whole Article Three of our Constitution?  You know, the part that reads:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Wouldn’t preparing for, and advocating the possibility of, war against the United States government constitute “levying war?”

It seems pretty clear cut.  That’s why they gave us the form of government they did.  Our elected officials are elected officials so that if they become corrupt we can vote them out of office.  It’s why each term is given a limited number of years.  That’s how we were given the power to “overthrow” our government.  If we believe our officials aren’t representing our best interests, vote them out of office.  Believe it or not, not a single politician wins an election without getting votes from Americans.

The Second Amendment was written to give citizens the ability to form militias to defend against threats during a time in our country when the first line of defense on our borders was often the citizens who lived in those areas.  We didn’t have a well organized military with fortified military bases all over our country.  It took days (sometimes even weeks) to get federal troops to certain locations in our country, meaning we relied heavily on a “well regulated militia” to defend outlying areas that weren’t quickly reachable.

There are also the stories that say the Second Amendment was a compromise with states which supported slavery to give slave owners the right to suppress a possible slave revolt.

But even beyond the debate on the specifics of our Second Amendment, Article Three of our Constitution is pretty clear cut.

After all, didn’t we see how this would go once before?  Has anyone ever heard of the Civil War?  How did armed citizens fare against the federal government in the late-1800’s?  You know, back when citizens and the military were much more evenly armed, and our military was much less powerful.



These people really think things would go better against the modern United States military?  Also known as the most powerful war machine that’s ever existed.

And the ironic part is most of those who believe in a possible “armed revolt against the United States government” are the same people who support the party which funnels hundreds of billions of dollars into our military defense budget—which is controlled by the federal government.

Nothing quite like properly funding the military which you believe you may one day have to “rise up against.”

But what it really breaks down to is this, according to our Constitution: Anyone who believes they need to compile an arsenal of weapons, with the belief that they’re preparing for an armed revolt against the United States government (aka levying war), is advocating treason against the United States of America, making them a traitor—not a patriot.




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

  • Tj

    Actually truth be told it makes you a potential COP killer!
    Seriously! Think about it.
    Just who do you think it going to show up at your door first to deal with a fool with a gun wanting to over throw the government? Doesn’t sound like they thought it through very well dose it? Typical for the average Tea Partier or gun nut. Are you listening Nugent?? So Tea Partier, are you ready to kill every COP that show up at your door cause they are definitely coming if you decide to make good on your inane dangerious threats? Then if by some chance you manage something so terrible, then the military is coming and, oh by the way, they have tanks.
    Yes, you look every bit as stupid as everyone thinks you are. Any one that thinks that even in the name of freedom or not that they are going to get by with killing even one COP much less more than one is SICK IN THE HEAD.
    Get help, please! If you know some one like this get them help.
    I support my local police. How about you??
    Am I the only that has figured this out????

    • NymRod

      If stupid were a crime you’d be a felon.

      • Guile Williams

        At least he tried to bring an argument to the table. What about you?

      • YouKnowMe

        NymRod ain’t got nothing. He’s already used up his words today.

      • Robert Thorne

        Valid arguments should not contain slander. The “argument” brought up by Terry is nothing more than an opinion. What’s more is that it is paper-thin, it can be entirely re-written by changing a few names and the world left to right.

    • adam charles

      I suppose your support your local policeman that beats up a person to inches of their life for doing nothing wrong?

      I suppose you think the war on drugs where thousands of cops die a day is futile and needs to end then?

      I suppose you support someone who takes from another and says deal with it, then mercilessly bombs those people and says them retaliating is treason?

      yeah, I bet you do.

      Private citizens have tanks too, and jet fighters.

      Also since you seems to be on a tangent of misinformation, the military is 4 million strong. citizens with guns are 90 million strong with more than 120 million guns strong.

      you tell me who wins in the fight against corruption?

      • Adam, What planet are you from? Thousands of cops die every day?

      • Matthew Kennedy

        whoops, i read that wrong

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yo, fool. Ever hear of drone strikes? They would fry your butt without having to look into your sorry face. I’d love to see you try to get those 90 million people assembled, especially given that only a small minority of those are survivalist/militia/black helicopter nutjobs.

      • Robert Thorne

        I’d love to hear your experience with drones, because they seem to have a lot of trouble finding people in Afghanistan. Also, anyone who thinks our military would subjugate the population in it’s entirety is flat-out stupid; I say this to both sides. In the unlikely event of illegal martial law and an emergent fascist state, defection, desertion, and sabotage. This is not something hard to do and according to UCMJ a soldier should not follow unlawful orders such as the deployment of active troops to the US under the above circumstances.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I don’t think the right wing secessionist crowd is bright enough to hide from drones. The Afghans are a far hardier folk and used to guerrilla warfare. Weekend warriors would make easy targets.

      • gaige

        Considering we’re largely the ones that build, maintain, and fly the drones, I think you need to be more concerned about the drones than we do.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’m not concerned about drones. I’m not the ones threatening to overthrow the government. And if you do come after me with one, just don’t miss. It’s been a good life.

      • Robert Thorne

        All you need is a rug or anything else that can block body heat, like buildings. When’s the last time you have been to Afghanistan? I was there from 2011-2012, believe me, they are not the smartest people, they have learned through trial and error over the course of 40 some odd years. The only thing that stops us from decimating them are morality and war crimes.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I think it’s more like 2400 years. Didn’t Alexander the Great call afghanistan “the graveyard of empires?” But I’m talking about American numbnuts who plan on storming the fort out in the open yelling “remember the Alamo” or some such nonsense. Would be easy pickins.

      • Robert Thorne

        40 years of dealing with similar tech, pertaining to the argument we were having, given the tech we have now and the absence of a certain ROE, we could just exterminate the entirety of their population with NBC attacks. I don’t understand where people seem to get this notion that any sane person would challenge the US forces openly. People like you bring up the Alamo and “hurr they think they can beat the military with there assault rifles”. The main weapon used in a new civil war setting would be hunting rifles and homemade IED’s. Take a potshot and run away warfare. Loyal and seperatist force of the military would do all the open fighting.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Do you REALLY think the right’s lunatic fringe would actually try overthrowing our democratically elected government or not? I do, but I don’t think it would be a smart thing to do.

        I don’t bring up the Alamo; those idiots do. And I bring it up because they are, IMHO, not sane people.

      • redc1c4

        you’re the last person who should be commenting on sanity…

        you apparently have no recent experience with it, and, indeed, appear to be allergic to is.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What feeble point are you trying to make? You another one of them paranoid nutjobs?

      • Robert Thorne

        No, its not much of a democratically elected gov when the electoral college can override popular vote. Your the first person I’ve heard that from and I browse both sides often. Edify me with a reputable source and I will believe me, or don’t its the internet. IMHO is not a reputable source btw lol

      • redc1c4

        against a high tech opponent, heavily reliant on technology mobility, etc, the guerrilla’s best bet is to attack the logistical supply line at all levels, starting with sabotage and delays at the point of production, or even raw materials, and then all the way down to where it is turned over to the military..

        of course, the government could outsource overseas all of it’s high tech whizbang weapons to protect their supply line, at the cost of giving up all the tech and leaving themselves open to having it cut off by the new provider at any time.

        the most vulnerable point on an M-1 Abrams is the fueler in the LOGPAC convoy, and that’s a soft target.

      • redc1c4

        amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

        why attack a fort, not that there are any here in the US, except as an administrative title, when you can cut off it’s supplies of food, fuel, ammo, spare parts, etc.?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So…go ahead and try your insurrection. I think you talk big but are basically an empty chicken$hit.

      • Schmoozy

        It would be a bit like Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

      • gaige

        Drones launched from where? Flown, armed, maintained, manufactured by whom?

        There will be NO SAFE REAR AREAS.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Da US military, of course. But do you REALLY think we’re up for another civil war?

      • redc1c4

        now you’re back to hoping the military will obey illegal orders…

        which we are trained NOT to do.

      • Joe Patriot

        President Obama is doing a very effective job at assembling those 90 million. It may end up being the only thing he’s done right.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So why is the economy better, Obama has a current approval rating twice that of Bush’s exit rating, and he got re-elected? Or you would rather we have continued in a severe recession with 10% unemployment? Some of us think Obama has done a much better job than the last guy. My IRA has finally recovered from the beating it took in 2007.

      • chrisslowik

        actually the war on drugs is futile.

      • Guile Williams

        Not necessarily, the goal of the war on drugs is to eliminate if possible and minimize if not. I wonder how bad drug problems would be if they decided to do nothing.

      • Sylvain

        Actually economically speaking it would be a good thing to stop.
        You can’t stop retards from doing drugs anyways.
        However you can tax the shit out of it. Make it a safe economy (no more black market killings).

        Do it like it should be done.
        Any drug available to anyone over 21 but while in a confined space determined by the government (like buildings designed for this).

        Look @ the netherlands. Most people there who do drugs are actually tourists. The people of the Netherlands actually have a really low amount of drug users/capita. People just got over the thrill of ruining their brains and bodies.

      • Jaz2121

        Here here! This war on drugs is nothing more than a money making machine that needs to end. Expensive futility!

      • Rob

        The “take the warning labels off and let it sort itself out” theory. Upon decriminalization, yes, there will be a surge of usage, but it will taper off. People will still die, but not as many, and more importantly, the people dying will have made the choice to, as opposed to the many innocent victims of the black market illicit trade.

      • About as bad as the country right after prohibition. Or in Portugal’s case probably better.

      • margieR

        In the Netherlands, where using drugs is “legal”, as long as you get then from a pharmacy, if you sign up as an addict, addiction is going way down, because treatment is immediately available, no waiting, hop on the bus and they take you right there. New HIV infections are also way down, virtually eliminated.

        If you don’t want to go, they give you clean needles for free and explain why sharing them is bad.

      • Robert Thorne

        Let’s see, for a historical example, let’s look at the prohibition, which really helped define and expand the organized crime that we now have today. By eliminating a market for alcohol, the created a product for which price and supply was dictated by illegal distributors i.e. the Mafias. Seeking to maintain this product they adopted tactics to a lethal extent to propagate their wealth. When the market was opened up again with the 21st amendment, people no longer needed to buy from these unsavory characters.

      • Robert Thorne

        Now I’m not saying I support the use of drugs and such, however there are enough that do that cause enough trouble. All I’m saying is let them OD on homegrown shit and use all those wasted funds on some new drones to watch the border and well armed QRF for response to intrusion.

      • Sylvain

        The funny thing here is that this dude actually thinks that 90/120 million people would ‘rise’ to defeat the government that is actually helping the US economy…

        Civilian Jets? Seriously man? Wake the fuck up. A WW2 Collectors fighter with heat flares really stands a chance against lazer targeted missiles?

        The government would not even fight you. You people are worse then Al-Quaeda. You guys are not only willing to kill innocents to ‘stop Obama’ but you are willing to kill people who are protecting YOU from criminals, such as Cops or the Military.

        Trash like you really needs to go get educated.

        Extremist pieces of shit.

      • Guest

        well everyone….dont think we could fight our own gov…i think we do need our guns just in case. and im pretty sure if it came to drones or shooting our own citizens a lot of military would go UA …JUST SAYIN DONT THINK MY WIFE WILL TK

      • Seriously?

        Kent state proves you wrong. Those kids got shot just for protesting *without weapons*. Imagine your great disappointment when you are lying in a pool of your own blood and feces because you thought they’d just lay down their weapons and disregard their CO because you think your cause is so noble.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Kent State was a far more complex situation than you might be aware of. The National Guard were sleep-deprived youngsters with itchy trigger fingers. Not to excuse what happened, but they weren’t battle-hardened military. You try going up against the Army and you’re gonna lose every time.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        It’s the “Red Dawn/Rambo” idiocy.
        All these weekend warriors think that a bunch of untrained, undiscipled men with guns will, of course, triumph over a trained military with the latest in weaponry.
        The irony is that when I ask such people if they voted in the last election, almost all of them say, “I can’t be bothered.”
        Too much trouble to use a right our military has fought and died to keep for us….but they’ll whup them federal troops with no problem.
        Because that’s the way it happens in the movies!

      • Robert Thorne

        *weekend warrior is a phrase for National Guard soldiers”

      • Joe Patriot

        hey Mr. Thorne, I’m in the National Guard and out of the last 5 years I’ve spent 2 years training up for deployments, essentially working 2 jobs and I’m currently on my second tour in Afghanistan. That’s 4 years away from my family. Long fucking weekend! What have you done for America lately?

      • EddieMac

        “Hold up SWAT team, the President would like to talk to this man that’s locked up in his house, shooting at us, and hear reasons for why he is so upset.”

      • YouKnowMe

        And maybe intervene with the town council about how they’re going to pay to clean your yard because you say you’re on gummint Social Security and can’t pay to clean it yourself. Poor oppressed patriot, here, have a cookie.

      • dick7828

        at kent state those protesters were destroying innocent peoples property and throwing rocks at NG that had just come from inner city riots in cleveland all you naysayers would have protected yourselves any way you could

      • Ronald Green

        Yep 4 kids got shot with .357 cal. bullets by NG troops with 30.06 cal. rifles and a .45 cal. pistol. Yeah, you must be right.

      • Sean Jones

        actually any soldier that refused a DIRECT ORDER FROM THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF would be shot on the spot for treason. See theres this little thing in the military oath about obeying orders from superiors. But dont let any facts get in the way of your BS babbling.

      • redc1c4

        shooting Soldiers on the spot would be a violation of the UCMJ not to mention being prejudicial to good order and discipline. it’s not going to happen, even though the idea warms your dark little fascist heart.

        besides that, *every* person in uniform can and should refuse to obey illegal orders, no matter who is giving them. as some who has taken the oath more times than you’ve read it on the Internet, i know what i’m talking about.

      • Joe Patriot

        you watch to much TV Mr. Jones!

      • Guest

        Sean, the oath requires that all LAWFUL orders must be obeyed. Our soldiers are actually required to refuse to obey orders that they believe are unlawful. This stems in part from the Nuremburg war crimes trials following World War 2 and from the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam war. I doubt you’ve ever been in the US military. Perhaps you should read the oath of enlistment before running your suck about it. LMAO at being shot on the spot for treason! You don’t even have a clue about what elements constitute a charge of treason!

      • Sean Jones

        “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” That is treason, so by the Military taking up guns against the government they would be TRAITORS, providing aid the the governments enemies (ie. all you slack jawed gun huggers) they would be guilty of, wait for it, TREASON. So dont tell me I dont know what im talking about, its spelled out pretty clearly in the article. But if you knew how to read you would already know that.

      • Guest

        Sean, you’re an idiot. You stated that any soldier who refused to obey an order from the CinC would be shot on the spot for treason. How do you reconcile that with what you just quoted as the definition of treason in an armed force that is only required to obey lawful orders? Obama (or any other POTUS) can shriek orders at the military all day long but if they aren’t lawful, EVERY soldier/sailor/airman/marine/coast guardsman is OBLIGATED TO REFUSE TO OBEY THEM! Like I said, you have no idea what you are talking about. I love hammering little nazis like you, LOL!

      • Joe Patriot

        Um, yeah Sean, don’t let facts get in your way! I’m a SSgt in the Army, currently on my second tour in Afghanistan. We don’t shoot our own people on the spot, they have the right to a trial. We’re required to follow all LAWFUL orders from our superiors, and if we question the legality of an order we have the right to refuse it and we are given legal representation. This right extends to any commanding General as well.

      • Sean Jones

        And you dont think that Martial Law would be instituted? Suspension of Habeus Corpus? After all the right keeps telling us that Obama is destroying the Constitution, so what makes you think he wouldnt do just that? (And thank you for serving and protecting our country)

      • Ronald Green

        Don’t really know much about the military, do you.

      • YouKnowMe

        Do you know of any cases where armed authority switched sides in America, where cops refused to beat down protesters and instead joined them? Get real, little gamer.

      • Jaz2121

        Pssst… the population of the US is 313 million as of 2012. 😉

      • Psssst ever hear of Vietnam? Someone had a huge technological advantage and farmers still managed to put up a strong resistance.

      • Tanner Westman

        Pssst, the Vietnamese had a huge territorial and population advantage.

      • According to sub our military technology should always win the day over a numerically superior and technologically inferior force please keep up.

      • EddieMac

        Do the math then: could always win, but didn’t win.

        They didn’t want to win?

        Correct.

      • Rob

        Kinda like, I dunno, HERE?

      • Joe Patriot

        Have any of you anti-gun, anti-conservative liberals considered that the majority of gun owners own guns to protect themselves and their families from criminals who wish to do them harm? If the police could protect everyone all the time our rape and murder rate would be 0, wouldn’t it? Or have you considered that those who wish to own guns to be prepared for war are preparing for the day that our federal government no longer exists because the corrupt, incompetent leaders squandered all of our money and resources? Has this never happened in the history of the world? Remember the mighty Soviet Union? Read a little post cold war Eastern European history and you’ll understand what happens to a civilized society when it’s government fails.

      • vwbtl99

        For every crime committed in this country every day in every inch of it… How many of them have been stopped by armed citizens rather than police officers? Guns are not the answer. Education and/or opportunity is.

      • EddieMac

        Pssssst! – Vietnam was purposely dragged out to keep the war machine cranking out cash, not because of any military strategy or anything more than simple profiteering. Plus, it’s desensitized us to perpetual, never ending wars.

      • I would agree with that but you’re taking my comment out of context. And perhaps I should have used the soviet occupation do Afghanistan as the example it might have been more in line with what I was trying to say.

      • YouKnowMe

        Ruby Ridge and Waco sure held out a long, long time, didn’t they? And didn’t the citizens of Texas and Idaho just all, like, rise up and vanquish the Feds in those situations?

        You guys with your slopjar brains, my, my. And the US isn’t a small, mountain-ringed country like Afghanistan, either.

      • Robert Thorne

        Citing two small examples of cults, congrats. You’re right the US is a huge expansive terrain with urban sprawl, deep swampland, huge deserts, and not one but two mountainous regions on either side of the country.

      • Schmoozy

        Actually it was drug out due to politicians running the war. Every time the Vietnamese were on the ropes, they would ask for peace talks which would then be relayed to our commanders to lower aggressions. As soon as they recouped their strength, the Vietnamese would break off talks and then start hostilities stronger than before.

      • W. Gabriel Soto

        Agreed. Gorilla warfare always beats technology.

      • YouKnowMe

        In your wet dreams, maybe. The Native Americans sure held out, too, didn’t they?

      • zukifan na

        You just made the argument for folks that fear their government is growing out of control……..The Indian (Native American is a bullshit term invented by white liberals) Tribes capitulated only when defeated in battle by a better armed force or if they were outright slaughtered……so who’s side is history on? We’ve been doing a heck of alot of bombing, droning and occupying without a single victory over people(s) that refuse to capitulate to the wants and demands of the US government and her allies…….slopjars indeed.

      • Nathan Walters

        Do you realize how stupid you sound? Let’s break down the word “Indian.” Notice how there’s the word “India” in there? That’s because the first people to arrive in the Americas thought they had reached India, so they named the natives “Indians,” or people of India. Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but we’re in the Americas, not in India, so the correct term is “Native American.” Insisting that the native peoples of the Americas should be called Indians only makes you look uneducated. Carry on.

      • Joe Patriot

        Nathan, if they realized how stupid they sound we couldn’t call them liberals anymore.

      • Tim Jensen

        As an “American Indian” I say keep your PC BS machine. Clinton did a good job on you. Native American means anyone born in the Americas, dolt.

      • Schmoozy

        Most “Native Americans” that I’ve ever known actually prefer the term “Indian”. This is coming from someone with Cherokee blood in their veins.

      • zukifan na

        I grew up with Indians……they call themselves Indian…..’nuff said.

      • Schmoozy

        Actually the Native Americans did pretty well for being outnumbered and ravaged by diseases. You act like they lost the entire country in a day. Google a chart of projected populations of natives before and after Europeans introduced new diseases to the continent.

      • Schmoozy

        On another note, look how long the C.S.A. lasted in the Civil War. Most of them were just farmboys with outdated hunting weapons. They did a hell of a job for their position. You really need to study history.

      • Rita D. Lipshutz

        lol, for an “expert” on guerrilla warfare you sure look stupid when you don’t know how to spell it. maybe you meant that spelling, it sure matches up well with your apparent intellect

      • Perry Constantine

        I agree, if you had an army of gorillas trained to use firearms.

        Learn to spell.

      • MARTinNJ

        That would be the TeaParty?

      • James Dunn Jr

        not always in a situation like this Us fighting each other what the hell kind of message you really send our real enemies wanted to destroy us we already got bad cops we trying to get rid of now to fight each other only weakened us allow our real enemies to come and heavily try to destroy us

      • Cathryn Sykes

        The Viet Cong had the jungle. I don’t think the cornfields of Iowa will have the same effect.

      • James Dunn Jr

        tht was over 40 years ago and they lsot jsut as many people as we did try that war today see what happens

      • Joe Patriot

        You’re a very impressive man Sylvain. You should join the debate team. But before you do I strongly advise you to learn a little bit about the U.S. economy.

      • MeanwhileHereonEarth

        Mercilessly bombs people in this country? I’m pretty sure we’d have heard about that if it was actually happening outside of your head.

      • Bozo Detector

        Hello, American Taliban! You need a shrink. End of reply.

      • Robert Thorne

        So a group dedicated to the preservation of a fundamental right entitled to you in the constitution of the United States of America is somehow the same a zealous group in the Middle East with a track record for human rights abuses and the subjugation of it’s people. You sure do make a great argument.

      • Jaz2121

        This guys has his very own bubble he lives in. Tell me, do you get all your news from Rush Limbaugh?

        Who are these thousands of cops that are dropping like flies in this war on drugs?

        I’d also like an example of someone who was stolen from, then got bombed, and then convicted of being a traitor.

        I’d like to meet these private citizens who own armed tanks and jet fighters but they don’t exist I’m afraid.

        Well, if there are actually 90 million armed people in our country ready to rise up against the mere 4 million HEAVILLY armed military soldiers, there are another 210 million people that don’t own guns who will rise up against you traitorous fools.

        You’re still just pissed off that we have a black president, nothing more.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        So true. The last line….I was on Facebook today and here was another idiot calling the President an “imposter” because he wasn’t born in America. I’d sure like to know what motivated his parents to fake the birth certificate and the notice in the paper, and somehow, from the grave, convince the State of Hawaii’s archivist and former Republican governor to certify that certificate as valid decades later. I mean, how did they know 47 years before he was first elected, that all that plotting and fakery would be needed and they’d better get to work on it? Was it a message from God?

      • Guest

        If Obama’s first executive order hadn’t been to seal ALL his records, these people wouldn’t have so much to gripe about. Under the laws at that time, his mother apparently didn’t have sufficient legal standing to convey US citizenship upon her child. She later moved to Indonesia and married a man who adopted Obama, conveying not only his Islamic faith but also full Indonesian citizenship upon Obama (otherwise he would not have been able to attend the Indonesian school he was sent to). There is no record that either Barack Obama or the Indonesian government ever revoked that citizenship, and those are the ONLY 2 parties that had the legal authority to do so. Given the fact that Obama sealed his travel and college records, at best it would seem that he travelled to a forbidden country using a passport portraying himself as being a citizen of some country other than the US, and that he probably claimed that he was a foreign student in order to gain easier acceptance to college in the US, and probably to obtain financial aid and other benefits earmarked for foreign-born students. There is fraud here somewhere, and it’s really just a matter of flipping a coin as to whether it was felony-level financial aid fraud by claiming to be a foreign student, or whether he fraudulently obtained the office of POTUS by claiming to be a US citizen. There is also a matter of probable fraud on his law license that is related to his mysterious, vagabond past. None of these are good options for Obama, especially since the Democrats and liberals attempted to disqualify John McCain and made him trot out his birth certificate for inspection. Obama certainly appears to be a very dishonest, deceitful man, even by political standards! Obama isn’t at fault for having a flake for a mother and a deadbeat father, but he IS at fault for not caring enough about his citizenship and his future to straighten out the legal mess his mother created as soon as he reached the age of legal majority. By neglecting to do that, he compounded his legal problems and willingly shifted them from his mother to himself. He has continued to make his situation worse, not better, and he is the only one to blame for that. It’s truly a tragedy that America’s first black president has turned out to be such a lawless, ruthless, sociopathic thug. There were many, many better black candidates that could have been nominated, won the election, and served America with honor and integrity.

      • 838283

        blackwaters owner is extreme conservative christian and has a huge private military with all ex ranger sf seal delta operators. and has the ability to disperse his men faster than the US govt. He got the contracts after Katrina because he was there before the military could. Do some research on private contractors because there are several who do have the same equipment as the military and if anything ever did happen being in the special warfare community and knowing a lot a people and i guarantee you that many would be dropping out of the military because most of the special warfare community is also southern country boys that love god guns and country which disrupt the ranks. not saying that the private side and civilians would or could overthrow a the government but it would be a hell of a fight. so whoever it was talking about the private tanks and fighter jets was correct. it may not be civilians but its private contractors. and the owner of blackwater shares the same ideas and opinions as many conservatives and does have an army of porffesional soldiers who are trained in anti terror guerrilla warfare and intelligence

      • Carolyn Gollaher Holloway

        First off the “conservative” owner of Blackwater shares the conservative ideals because he doesn’t want to pay taxes. He also likes to get paid when doing things, he is not going to join in the treason you are condoning. He won’t get PAID. I was going to respond about how you think the military is full of a bunch of traitors who would turn coat just because the man in the big chair is black but I will not denigrate our military like that. I am still in shock that so many of the supposed patriot groups keep calling for armed rebellion which makes people like that a special kind of stupid.

      • Scotty Starnes

        Only ones not paying taxes are those in Obama’s cabinet and his campaign bundlers (see Penny Pritzker). Conservatives are paying taxes and that is why most speak out against having to pay even more. Liberals need to step up and pay, maybe then they will understand the term “tax enough already.”

      • Carolyn Gollaher Holloway

        Well…if you had read my comment maybe this could have been avoided. I did not say they do not pay taxes I said they do not want to pay taxes. And contrary to conservative rhetoric most liberals do pay taxes, they also do not like to pay taxes. However; they do realize in a society that taxes pay for things like roads, schools, infrastructure and also go to help those less fortunate than we are. It is necessary in a caring, compassionate society to provide a social safety net. It is not necessary to provide even more tax breaks to companies making billions in profit. But taxes aren’t the real story here anyway, my comment was on the fact that Blackwater is not some ultra conservative patriot group that helps America out of a sense of pride, they get paid and they are not going to be on your side just because they are “conservative” they will go with the money as they always have.

      • John K. Winters

        “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
        ― Benjamin Franklin

      • Scotty Starnes

        Nobody mentioned companies or corporations. Most Americans, those who actually pay federal taxes, are sick of paying taxes and watching Washington politicians waste it and reward it to their corporate donors. As far are Blackwater, Xe is the new name, I could care less and didn’t bring them up in the comment.

        Most law enforcement, military members and defense contractors are moral and I can bet they would never side with a tyrannical government over its citizens.

        I do appreciate the civility in your comments. This is the way a discussion should be and wish more would debate this way.

      • guest

        The point is that the vast majority of those in the military clearly understand that the oath they swore when joining up required them to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and to obey LAWFUL orders from their superiors. That means that every soldier MUST decide which orders are lawful and which are unlawful. They penalty for obeying illegal orders is courts martial, imprisonment, and perhaps even death. Nowhere does that oath of enlistment require our soldiers to mindlessly obey “the man in the big chair” regardless of what race he is. The fact is that very few soldiers will turn their weapons on US civilians except to defend themselves from serious injury or death. I do expect most of them will either refuse such orders, sit on the sidelines and watch Obama’s personal army of welfare miscreants, ticks and leeches fight conservatives (many of whom are ex-military), and some will perhaps go AWOL and almost invariably join the conservatives. There is precedent for my opinion, too. When President Reagan was shot, General Haig told the press not to worry because he/the military had taken control of the US government and was running the country. Every US soldier from that era that I’ve questioned about that incident has uniformly stated that they were absolutely horrified by Haig’s words and knew they had to immediately choose whether to obey the US Constitution (and it’s provision for the orderly succession of powers) or whether they were going to support Haig’s apparent military coup. They chose to obey the Constitution and decided that they would refuse all orders from someone who had illegally seized the office of President. They said the very few soldiers who thought Haig was right were very junior in rank and great care was taken to correct their beliefs and to make sure they understood that the US military is always intended to be subordinate to the US civilian citizens.

      • Ronald Green

        Yep… it’s Raaaacism. What else ya got?

      • Joe Patriot

        and if the Commander in Chief ever ordered the U.S. military to turn their arms on U.S. citizens there would be millions of abandoned weapons and uniforms with only untrained liberals to pick them up.

      • redc1c4

        no, the weapons would be gone or sabotaged.

      • Ronald Green

        I know several people who privately own tanks, entirely legal too. Too bad you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • Joe Patriot

        There we go!! Typical liberal!! You don’t like the President’s ideology so you’re just a racist! That’s always the liberals reaction when they have no substantial rebuttal. What were you calling me when I didn’t agree with George Bush’s policies? And lets not forget that our President is not black, his mother was 100% white you idiot!

      • Scotty Starnes

        Always love to point out the only ones who point out Obama’s skin tone are the racists who voted for him.

      • DroppinTruthBombz

        “Well, if there are actually 90 million armed people in our country ready to rise up against the mere 4 million HEAVILLY armed military soldiers, there are another 210 million people that don’t own guns who will rise up against you traitorous fools.”

        Actually that’s a lie, because those 210 Million people are anti-gun, depend upon the Government for everything, and think that gun-free zones save lives.

        You also fail to account for the number of Military personnel who are gun owners and Conservative in political viewpoints, who would thus side with the gun owning civilian crowd. You also fail to understand simple math, so I recommend you go read Gen. David Patraeus’s counter-insurgency strategy, AKA The Surge.

      • warmg

        wow. that’s just about all I can say. thousands a day (maybe you meant over decades but even that would be a GROSS exaggeration)?

      • Robert Thorne

        Come on coming from progressives, the left makes nothing but gross exaggerations. Senator Feinstein’s entire argument is based on the gross exaggeration of what she determines to be a threat. Anyone who thinks that guns deaths of any kind added together are an epidemic should see the numbers for vehicular deaths or even water deaths.

      • Duane Mortensen

        Nationally the annual police and law enforcement fatality numbers have been around 165/year for several decades. Last year it went down 23%.

      • YouKnowMe

        Wow, what a two-fisted red-blooded ninja patriot.

      • Demolition Man

        “Thousands of cops die every day in the war on drugs”??? That would be roughly 1/2 a million cops a year. I don’t think there are that many in the US. And who has been bombed in this country? We only bomb people in their countries. Check your facts, cite your sources, then reply. Troll…

      • Paula Payne

        She is not saying she supports the police or military. She is saying if you actively rise up against them, you will get your ass kicked. Would YOU like to test that theory?

      • redc1c4

        well, Chris Dorner managed to paralyze law enforcement throughout Southern California all by his lonesome, and he was a nut case.

        if one man could do that, what would happen if 8 or 12 trained, stable people took into their head to start a guerrilla campaign of sabotage and targeted actions?

        the venier of civilization is very thin and not as resilient as it used to be. your faith is touching, but not as well placed as you might wish to believe.

      • dick7828

        sorry you flunked kindergarten go back and try to learn something

      • James Dunn Jr

        citizen don t have close to the weapons the
        us does nuc weapons that can take out 8 country any dumbazz who think cause we got a Black president and is trying to make change for the middle class think the solution is attacking our military and enforcement because out of the bad cops its always the good ones who seem to get killed anyone who thinks KKK version of a better america is best deserved to be shot down man hate will never ever win i don’t care what you have there ain’t enough fighters out there to match again one that can take out two countries with one shot military has intelligence we would not imagine and the sad part of the whole thing you just opening the window to our real enemies who are looking to destroy us like Spet 11

      • Robert Thorne

        Man either troll or you really should read over your posts. Are you implying that the US would nuke itself? Also I believe Rob Williams said it best, “When Obama took office, white guilt dropped lower then the stock market”. I don’t mind a black president, even though he’s a mixed race… I just don’t like his stance or his lackluster attempt with going green attempts.

      • James Dunn Jr

        yeah because idiots like you who think they can over throw the Gov i put nothing past the right wing nuts extremist and folks like you truly believe smh

      • Robert Thorne

        Please learn to form proper sentences. Where have I said anything about overthrowing the government? Cite me and I would be glad to use this argument called “logic” to destroy you. Also, what can you gather from my statements that puts me in the extreme right wing? See if you can guess what political structure I actually align towards.

      • James Dunn Jr

        You just proved my point all talk no Facts lawd help our country smh

      • Tanker Mike

        As if the most powerful military in the world hasn’t been stymied by dedicated hillbilly farmers in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Tell me if it’s worth it to punch a beehive or roll on an ant hill to kill ants. It won’t kill you but there’s a point where control is lost.

      • Joe Patriot

        Adam, you forgot to mention that the majority of the 4 million American soldiers do not approve of our current government’s disregard for the Constitution, as well as millions of police officers around the country. WE took an oath and WE took that oath seriously.

    • YouKnowMe

      They think the cops and the military are going to rise up and join them. No, seriously, don’t laugh, they really believe that.

      • terry

        Sadly we know there are those out there too, but if you notice, all these NUTS are on the “Right”. I am sure there are nuts on the left, but they aren’t out making one stupid comment after another, and thankfully not many of them are in Congress. Louie Ghomert or however you spell this dumb ass republican from Texas name, Michelle, Rand, Ted… the list of NUTS on the “right” keeps growing, and that’s just Congress.

      • Ronald Green

        Add to that list Pelosie, Fienstien, Schumer, the list keeps growing doesn’t it.

      • redc1c4

        “I am sure there are nuts on the left, but they aren’t out making one stupid comment after another…”

        then you haven’t been reading the comments in this thread, have you?

      • ryan

        Yes, there are people from the “left” that make one stupid comment after another, Just look at the POTUS. He is always speaking stupidly.

      • Observing U

        Are you sure your Whisper 2000 isn’t set to “FOX”?

      • Ronald Green

        Better than ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or PBS, all liberal propaganda outlets without one iota of integrity among them.

      • kman68

        PMSNBC

      • Joe Patriot

        Terry, have you stopped and asked yourself, “why is this list of nuts growing?” Could it be because all these “nuts” and the people who voted them into office are intelligent, educated people who can see where our present path is leading us? Our poverty rate is higher than it was when LBJ launched the war on poverty in the 1960’s and the “left” thinks the solution is to borrow and spend more money. We’re spending more money on education than at any time in our history but our education system is ranked 28th in the world. Seriously??? NUTS is believing that you can spend your way out of debt and into prosperity! NUTS is believing that the solution to every social problem is to just throw more money at it. Have you considered the possibility that the list of right wing nuts in government is growing because our ELECTED officials represent the populace? Or are you afraid to accept that liberalism has finally reached its pinnacle in America?

      • Observing U

        Nuts is believing you can cut spending, wages, labor laws and somehow, prosperity will trickle down to you. (PSsst, that’s not prosperity raining down on your head)

      • Scotty Starnes

        Yet, under the progressive redistribution of wealth from progressive Obama, we have record long-term unemployment; record poverty and record numbers on welfare and needing food assistance. Nuts is believing you can continue to spend $$$ that isn’t there as the labor force shrinks (less taxpayers).

      • Sythan

        Obama isn’t a progressive, he’s a die-hard centrist.

      • Ronald Green

        Not to here him tell it. He believes in wealth redistribution or have you forgotten him saying that. He is about as far left as you can get here without calling yourself a Communist. But do remember that all his mentors were Communists and Socialists, and one Terrorist… Bill Ayers.

      • Sythan

        If Obama is on the left, why did he protect Monsanto? Protecting large corporations seems conservative, not leftist. Why is he nominating and choosing centrists and pro-corporate people as part of his cabinet?

        Why is he pushing a trade pact that gives multinational corporations more power? A trade pact that has been rejected by labor unionists and environmental advocates?

        He’s not on the left, he’s center-right. Real leftists hate him.

      • Ronald Green

        Money. He was worth about 1.1 million when he was elected, He is now worth about 11 million. Even a socialist still wants more, which shows why The USSR failed and the Chinese changed their economic system before it collapsed.

      • Sythan

        He does not share the leftist ideology, plain and simple. His actions prove he’s a corporate-lover, not a socialist, so once again, you’re wrong.

      • Ronald Green

        Was Stalin a Communist or a “Republican”? the most powerful man in a totalitarian government is also the richest, but it doesn’t change the cats stripes.

      • Sythan

        Stalin was not a communist. The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Stalin didn’t kill people because of a certain race.

      • Ronald Green

        Stalin was not a communist? I think he would be surprised to hear that.

      • Sythan

        He publicly promoted the ideology while marching to a different tune. Communism advocates the abolition of the state in favor of collective ownership. Under Stalin, the USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship, not communist.

      • Ronald Green

        SMH have fun in your very different world.

      • Sythan

        I’m having fun in reality, you can continue to live in the bubble.

      • Ronald Green

        You wouldn’t know reality if it hit you in the face.

      • redc1c4

        tell that to the Jews, the Ukrainians, the Armenians, the Poles, etc…

      • HaHaHa

        History has shown that over time, that more Hebrews were killed in Russia for their beliefs than any other country. Hitler did his all at once where the Russians did it over time.

      • redc1c4

        that means he’s a fascist, which is still a leftard philosophy.

      • Iain Morrison

        Oxford English Dictionary definition of ‘Fascism’

        noun [mass noun]
        an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
        (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action
        The
        term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist
        regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in
        Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a
        belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for
        democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a
        strong demagogic approach

      • redc1c4

        repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it true. this definition is not grounded in reality, nor is it accurate. the Nazi’s were Socialists: get over it.

      • Iain Morrison

        Oxford English Dictionary definition of ‘Nazi’

        noun (plural Nazis) historical
        a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
        derogatory a person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
        a person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way:I learned to be more open and not such a Nazi in the studio
        The
        Nazi Party was formed in Munich after the First World War. It advocated
        right-wing authoritarian nationalist government, and developed a racist
        ideology based on anti-Semitism and a belief in the superiority of
        ‘Aryan’ Germans. Its leader, Adolf Hitler, who was elected Chancellor in
        1933, established a totalitarian dictatorship and precipitated the
        Second World War. The Nazi Party collapsed at the end of the War and was
        outlawed

      • redc1c4

        National SOCIALIST German W*rker’s Party.

        note the “SOCIALIST” in the name? no matter how you strain the language or the definitions, socialism is a disease of the left, as is Marxism.

        you own them both.

      • Joe Patriot

        Ron don’t argue with a liberal, they know everything.

      • RAHL

        No, corporate protectionism is not a conservative ideal. Free market economy means freedom to succeed or fail based on choices that are made, not intervention from the government. It was the same way with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as all the other bailouts that was given by Bush, Obama and Congress in General.

      • redc1c4

        and yet you voted for him in droves.

        the reason he supports Monsanto is that, as a good fascist leftard, he believes big companies and big government should manage every aspect of your life, and kill or imprison you if you object.

      • vwbtl99

        Yes, we are spending more money on education than we did years back. But you have to remember that every year more and more students come into our education system. More people are born every year than there are school aged people dying. So, obviously we need to spend more. Also, teachers pay as well as the cost of supplies, etc. go up. The extra costs in education do not cover properly those increases. Yes, we need to spend our money better and more wisely. But spending less is not the answer. Spending wiser is. We are not making as much money as we need to, to keep up with rising costs. Taxes must go up, but of course salaries must go up as well.

      • Joe Patriot

        we are spending more PER STUDENT!

      • vwbtl99

        YES, “stuff” costs more money today than it did 10 years ago.

      • Joe Patriot

        Wow! vwbtl99 you are truly brilliant!

      • vwbtl99

        Thank you! I already knew that.

      • Joe Patriot

        and taxes do not have to go up, REVENUEs have to increase. How do we raise more revenue without raising taxes? By creating an environment where business’ can grow not an environment that encourages them to move to other countries.

      • vwbtl99

        Of course revenue has to increase. Taxes must go up on those that can afford it. When you look around the world you would see that we pay almost nothing in taxes compared to other countries and we get less services too. We need to create more jobs to increase revenue. But when you have a government that refuses to work together, improving the jobs environment is not easy. We are increasing private jobs at a huge rate, but loosing public jobs at a huge rate as well. This administration has cut spending more than any other in recent history. But then you have huge companies out there sitting on trillions of dollars instead of creating jobs. Keep the money in this country instead of tax havens off shore. We need tax reform, jobs reform and a government that works together. In other words replace the republicans that are nothing but obstructing progress and democrats too that do the same.

      • Joe Patriot

        Look around the world at all those countries with high tax rates on the wealthy and plentiful services to the lower class, they’re all going bankrupt and their wealthy are leaving. We are increasing private jobs under Obama with government subsidized businesses that don’t pay enough to survive on, so we have to subsidize the workers as well, and we have far more government jobs than we’ve ever had. How long do you think we can do this before we suffer the same fate as Greece, or worse, the Soviet Union?? And how has Obama cut spending? We have more people on welfare than ever before but our gov’t doesn’t consider that “spending.” And he’s added $6 trillion to the national debt! So we’ve cut spending in some places and called it by a different name in others. Oh, and we’re just putting it on our credit card so the accountants don’t record it as “spending” until we actually pay the bill. Yup, that’s progress alright! Damn those Republicans, it’s all their fault!

      • vwbtl99

        Other countries have higher taxes on everyone, not just the rich. We are increasing jobs in the private sector and reducing jobs in government (Not increasing). And yes we are subsidizing more people on welfare because we lost a huge chunk of jobs as a result of the collapse in 2008. Remember we were loosing 800k jobs a month back then. We have been adding an average of 200k or so jobs for almost 3 years or so. Not enough for sure, but we have to take what we can. Maybe if congress did something we could have more jobs by now. We are not gonna end up like Greece or any of those countries unless we do what they did… Cut, cut, cut! Part of the increase in our national debt is also from the money used to stop the nation from collapse after the recession. No recession in 2008 and our debt wouldn’t be what it is now. Look at history and you will see that most jobs increase and less debt was achieved by democratic administration not republican administration.

      • kman68

        if you want to have more jobs, create a business friendly atmosphere. there is no reason this country should have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the free world. Over burdensome and redundant regulation and layer upon layer of government interference raise the cost of doing business and hinder growth. Obamacare is already costing jobs and working hours for those who are working and adding more IRS agents than doctors. A progressive/ liberal/ communist dream come true, to be sure, but a disaster for families.

      • vwbtl99

        “Over burdensome and redundant regulation and layer upon layer of government interference raise the cost of doing business and hinder growth”… That is true! Obamacare should not cost that much more than it already does. I have a business myself and know that for sure. Business will always do what’s better for them not the employee. but if we want to lower medical costs in the US we need to fix the problem. After all, Romney did it in Mass and it is working like a charm. Also, communism has nothing to do with being liberal or progressive. Trying to scare people with lies is not right.

      • Joe Patriot

        I agree, keep the money in this country. Tell President Obama to stop giving billions of dollars of military hardware and bribes to our enemies. And that’s billions of dollars of “foreign aid,” not considered spending.

      • vwbtl99

        Some foreign aid is ok, but not all. Agreed. Some is definitely needed for our own security. Some not so much. Anyways the money spent in foreign aid is nowhere near the deficit we have. It would be almost as if we cut the salaries of our politicians. Not a drop in the bucket.

      • Ronald Green

        Cut spending to the tune an additional 5 – 6 trillion dollars in unfunded spending? That’s quite a “cut”.

      • vwbtl99

        We will never be able to cut or debt all at once or even half of it. But we can make some smart cuts here and there, improve the economy, lower health care costs and charge the right amount of taxes to the right people and corporations and problem will be solved eventually. And correctly.

      • Ronald Green

        The ‘right’ amount of taxes to the ‘right’ people. I tell you what let’s run your tax rate to just 80% and see how you like it. ‘Improve the economy’? Well I guess Obama has done a spectacular job with that one too hasn’t he. 90% of the jobs that have been ‘created’ under his leadership are part time jobs. A few cuts here and there and tax business even high than they already are. That’s one great plan you got there, one that is almost guaranteed to destroy what’s left of the economy.

      • vwbtl99

        Who’s being taxed at 80% in this country or any country for that matter? Open your eyes and you’ll see what’s going on. Not all Obama has done has worked, but it is getting there. Maybe if the rest of the congress had helped it would be better by now. If you know what’s right and what’s not maybe you should run for president. Remember, the president doesn’t have all the power. Most of is done ONLY with congress approval. But then again they are not approving anything. So, what gives?

      • Ronald Green

        I suggested we raise Your taxes to just 80 % and we’ll see how loud you squeal. That’s because of Your statement about the ‘right taxes’ on the ‘right people’. But that was a good attempt at deflection. My eyes are wide open and I see a lot of things that you do not.

        What I see is a left wing attempt to remake this country into something very different from what was intended, something very socialist and very dependent on ‘liberal compassion’; and Big Brother, or is it just what ever feels good at the moment? When ‘big brother has all the power, big brother can do what ever he wants, even when you don’t like it. Why is it that liberals can’t see that simple precept? With mankind’s history of abuse of power and deliberate genocide, what makes you think it can’t happen in a liberal utopia. Especially when those liberals have ceded the ability to force that government to the people’s will because guns are scary. As too Congressional approval…. I give you Mark Twain… No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe when congress is in session. Better they just sit there and exempt themselves from all those laws for us little people like ErkleCare.

      • vwbtl99

        Oh my dear Mr. Green! I understood perfectly. With “right taxes on the right people” I mean the right amount not a ridiculous amount. Yes, I would scream if I had to pay 80% and so do you. But one thing is 80% and another is 30% or so. Germany for example pays near 50% in taxes as well as a huge 14% sales tax across the board (as of 1980’s). And they are doing pretty fine as a nation. As the matter of fact they are the ones bailing out the failing countries in Europe. Anyways, This country has been controlling it’s people since the very beginning. Do you remember the civil war? Has a civilian group ever defeated the US government militarily? Throughout US history we have been doing what the government wanted us to do. Every once in a while they do something for us. And as you can tell by the different laws enacted since the US was created a lot of them have been to better our lives and to be more supportive of people that needed the support. Also, more fair and humane. If you think that evolving into a more socially conscious nation is wrong then you need your head checked out. Also, remember taxes build roads, pays your unemployment, supports you when you get old and retire, keeps you healthy with medical care, gives you clean water to drink, etc. Without taxes or less taxes I would hate to see what we would be right now.

      • Ronald Green

        ‘Socially Conscious’? Not a very good deflection and not where it will end. The law of unintended consequences always rears it’s ugly head. No…, where you want go is pure ‘benevolent socialism’, which is never very ‘benevolent’.

        Don’t like the idea of paying 80%? Liberals have called for income taxes on the ‘rich’ to be raised as high 90%. I was just wondering how you felt about that and we can easily you don’t like it for you but for ‘them’…. ?

        I lived in Germany for 7 years and got to know a bunch them pretty well. Every one of them grumbled that their taxes were too high. That’s not much of a justification for raising ours to support your socialist agenda.

      • vwbtl99

        🙂 As usual repeating old lies and passing them as truth. No one suggests or supports an increase in taxes to the rich or anyone for that matter up to 90%. That is just BS. I lived in Germany as well and I did not meet one soul there that preferred to live here over their own country, taxes and all! I lived with them, ate with them, visit with them and even dated them. I repeat NO ONE was interested in living here rather than Germany. As far as people “grumbling” that their taxes were too high, guess what? We all do. No ones wants to pay taxes. Low percentage, medium or high percentage. But it is a necessary evil. There is a right number for taxes and we need to find it. What I do know is that it can not be the same percentage for everyone. Someone making 15,000 yr paying 20% would have much less to live on as an overall percentage than someone making 1 million and paying 20%. If you make a million and pay 200k in taxes you still have 800k to live on, but if you make 15k a year and pay 3k in taxes that would be devastating. Think about it.

      • Ronald Green

        You, like ole Jim down there assume much and know little. Have fun with your opinions.. Good day.

      • vwbtl99

        Corporate taxes during the Clinton administration were higher than they are now. And we had a better financial result.

      • Jason Vineyard

        Which then in turn creates a surplus of jobs… creating a demand for workers, and raises wages without force. Thus relieving the need for programs that “help” the poor. Simple supply and demand economics there.

      • kman68

        per student spending is exploding, not just total spending. NYC publics spend over 20,000 per, and most can’t read when they try to get into even a local juco. again, epic fail!

      • vwbtl99

        As we all know money is not the total answer. Teachers must do better, schools must do better, parents must do better and communities must do better. We need to spend money wiser as well. It’s a complete failure what we have now. But again, less money is not the answer. More money maybe not that either, but definitely not less.

      • Sythan

        That’s not what the “Left” wants at all. There is no left in American politics, it’s a fight between the center-right (Democrats) and far right-wing (Republicans).

      • Joe Patriot

        There is no left?? What planet are you living on?

      • Sythan

        There is no major leftist party in America, the “Left” is not represented at all. What planet are you living on?

      • Joe Patriot

        It’s relative retard!

      • Sythan

        How about stopping the childish name calling and addressing my point.

      • Ronald Green

        I would think that Nancy and Diane and Charles would beg to differ with you.

      • redc1c4

        the one where honest people know the Demonrat party if about as far left as you can be without carrying around Mao’s little red book.

      • John E. Conway

        because the uneducated tend to multiply faster because they have unprotected sex , dont believe in abortion, and have poor sex education. They then pass on their poor education and ideology onto their children at a young age to ensure they are well brainwashed and unable to think for themselves on important issues and are completely closed to new ideas.

      • trickywoo

        Guess that’s why all the “shooters” are left wing shitbags

      • Christine Druid

        Sorry, dude, that story was DEBUNKED.

      • redc1c4

        where?

      • Christine Druid

        Let’s see, I assume you are referring to that full-o-crap email that went around back in March – let us dissect it, shooter by shooter: The Fort Hood shooter has claimed no political affiliation, and claims he was a registered Democrat are false. He lived in Virginia, which has NO party registration, and he never registered with any party in Texas. Seung-Hui Cho not only could not register in Virginia due to no party registration, but ALSO because he was NOT a US Citizen, therefore not eligible to vote anyhow. A Breitbart blogger claims James Holmes was a registered Democrat, but upon further review it was determined THAT was not the correct James Holmes. James Holmes personal facebook listed him as a “Moderate”. There is NO evidence he ever worked for Obama nor the Occupy movement, The Columbine shooters were too young to register to vote, but in letters and documents left behind they cite Timothy McVeigh as an influence (he was a Republican). Adam Lanza was mentally disturbed, and there is no record of his political leanings, however both he his mom had certificates from courses from the NRA, though the group itself has distanced itself form the two. His mother, nancy Lanza, WAS a registered Republican, who happened to live in a state where 2/3 of registered voters are Democrats. Laughtner, the guy who shot Gabby Giffords, registered as an independent in 2006, and did NOT vote in 2010.

        All of this info is readily available to anyone who is actually willing to research stuff, instead of blindly believing every meme they see that reflects what they want to believe.

        ****drops the mic***

      • blatant877

        Proof that your are an ignorant idiot. Do some research before you go spouting off, lunatic.

      • kman68

        who has said the 2nd Am. is to allow the overthrow of our government? The ability of a people to organize and oppose a tyrannical and over reaching and anti-constitutional government IS specifically provided for in The 2nd. These threats against liberty may also be from outside the country. I have never heard of any one on the right advocate killing police officers. Utter nonsense. Lies and distortion to influence the weak minded and uninformed.

      • Schmoozy

        It looks pretty cut and dry doesn’t it? “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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
        Governments long established should not be changed for light and
        transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind
        are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right
        themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But
        when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
        same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
        is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
        provide new Guards for their future security.”

      • John K. Winters

        Do you mean stupid comments like “We have to pass the bill so we can know what’s in the bill”? or worried about how many Marines are stationed on Guam because “it might tip over”?

      • gaige

        The cops in the major metropolitan areas will side with the progressive fascists, certainly. The large majority will, at least.

        But rural cops and county sheriffs pretty much everywhere? Overwhelmingly Patriot in their sympathies, and generally much more useful in terms of quality, at least the quality needed in fighting an anti-progressive insurgency.

        Suburban cops will be a toss-up, and courting them will be a Patriot priority. Military, at least the combat arms guys, will either sit it out against a domestic “enemies” made up of Patriots, or will largely side with them.

      • Observing U

        Progressives are not the fascists.

        You might want to break out your dictionary from 1930. Fascism is a right wing ideology and involved private ownership of government and laws. See: Republican Party.

      • Ronald Green

        NO, they’re not Fascists but pretty close, they’re Communists. And you’re wrong about fascism too. It is a blend of capitalism and communism where the government owns and controls most of the economy, except where the government feels it is expedient to allow private ownership of a select business or industry and only so long as they follow government directives. Facts are tough and you’ve got very few.

      • Sythan

        European social democratic parties are progressive, last time I checked, they scored higher than we do on most indexes like healthcare and education and the happiness of its citizens, take Norway for example. Doesn’t sound very fascist to me.

      • Ronald Green

        Take Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland as already broke with a whole lot of very unhappy citizens. Take France so far in debt, they’re having trouble making payments on it. England only got straightened out buy Margaret Thatcher or they would be down the tubes too. That is if you’re talking about Progressive / Socialist policies. If you’re talking about them being Fascist, where have you been for the last 60 years. Care to keep on topic or is that too difficult?

      • Sythan

        Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Finland are all countries with progressive/socialist policies, they’re doing just fine. I wasn’t talking about them being fascist, nowhere did I say that.

      • Ronald Green

        The EU is slowly foundering on the rocks of socialist policies. That the Scandinavian countries and Germany as well, haven’t dragged down yet does not change that. If they continue with the rest and stay on that path, all will sink.

      • Sythan

        Wrong, the EU is currently controlled by the conservative “European Peoples’ Party” with a majority in the European Parliament. They are not “on the rocks of socialist policies”. Scandinavia and their Nordic Model remains strong.

      • Ronald Green

        “Wrong”, just because you think it, doesn’t make it so.

      • Sythan

        And just because you believe they’re operating on “socialist” polices also does not make it so.

      • Ronald Green

        Over 50% in taxes and ‘everything’ is ‘free’, sounds pretty socialist to me.

      • Sythan

        That’s not the case in every European country. Even so, in places like that such as Scandinavia, it’s not socialism, it’s called “Social Democracy” and it is not the same as socialism. I find it both sad and laughable you didn’t know that.

      • Ronald Green

        And I find you to be laughable all the way around. You assume much and know little.

      • Sythan

        Of course, call me laughable for giving facts and saying that I know little while not countering, simply giving more points for me to refute. A pathetic attempt to divert the argument. You’re not fooling me child.

      • Ronald Green

        Try again little man. You assumed you know what I know and don’t know. It was childish of you and stated in such a way as to give insult, which is the norm for liberals. The EU will sink together or break up if they cannot get their ‘social spending’ problem under control. If Scandinavia does well after coming out of these problems, good on them. But in case you haven’t noticed they have been slowly moving from a total nanny state to something else. they haven’t yet found a balance, but like all of us they are stumbling along trying to find what suits them and they can afford.

      • Sythan

        Ha! Calling me a liberal? How stupid. Move along child, your points are moot.

      • Ronald Green

        You really should look in the mirror before for being such a pompous a$$.

      • Scott Snoopy

        Ron, this pseudo-intellectuals obviously are way smarter than the rest of us; they have learned so much in their 20 something years, maybe 30. All of those years of indoctrination in public education has done learned um good

      • Jim Hoover

        where did you get indoctrinated? You were Home schooled? Or maybe you went to a christian academy where they teach that Dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark. Or you were so strong in intelligence when you went to public school you were never Indoctrinated ROFLMFAO

      • Ronald Green

        I get it Jim, you’re just another troll with nothing but insults and nothing of substance to add to the conversation. But do keep on amusing yourself.

      • Jim Hoover

        you’re wrong, it is people like you who amuse the hell out of me. Spewing stupidity all over the internet, you see I’m used to dealing with smart ass children who believe they have the answers to the universe and really don’t. They are just in their own little world I try to bring them back to reality or they’ll spend their life in a institution by the way what institution are you in and do they actually let you on the inter net?

      • Ronald Green

        piss up a rope boy. And you still haven’t contributed anything of substance to the discussion.

      • LibertyDwells

        You have offered no “facts”. You have offered your opinions and a great, great deal of complete ignorance about government and social structures, policies and current economic issues.

      • Jim Hoover

        Ronnie did you get your education from some of those christian academies? Have you ever lived in one of those countries? I have, it was a pretty decent existence. One thing they treat their workers much better then we do.

      • Ronald Green

        I graduated from William Penn Senior High School, a public school, where did you go to school, Mmmm?

        I have lived in Germany for 7 years and Kuwait for 2 how about you? The Germans are great people, but even they grumble about their tax rates.

        So what is your point or are you just curious?

      • Jim Hoover

        I have lived in Norway, Germany, Mexico and several war zones. As for schools Saddleback High School, Long Beach State, University of Hawaii you want more little boy and in between the schools I was a member of the United States Army in a little country you probably never heard of, Vietnam. I found the Germans still living with the guilt that they let Adolf come to power.

      • Ronald Green

        For someone who claims to so well educated, you still haven’t contributed anything to the discussion but an attempt to insult me. Too bad all that shows is how small you are.

      • Jim Hoover

        Ronnie for someone who claim to be able to read Just because you ignore facts than say no contributions are made is so ignorant I have refuted your facts continuously but you can’t correct someone who thinks they know everything, I didn’t start the demeaning, it was you, but that is part and parcel for little boys like you, when they run out of fact or on shaky ground their first thing to do is call names then blame the answerer as the one who started trying to take the high ground. For that is the only way they can get the high ground and try to make themselves superior. Thank you for the compliment that I’m well educated but you see the trouble with being well educated you can’t pull fact out of your ass as you like to do. Thanks again for the compliment! ROFLMFAO

      • Ronald Green

        Actually you’re just a pompous jerkwad and I’m done with you and your level of immature stupidity.

      • Jim Hoover

        yet here you are again. Seriously, Ronnie, Jerkwad, and pompous at that. Do you even know what pompous means? is that all you got? You see I like grandiose, turgid better. You, Ronnie are a poser who thinks he is this person who is so much better then the rest of us and all you do is quote false facts right out of the mouth of Roger Ailes ROFLMFAO

      • Ronald Green

        Hahahahahahaha.

      • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

        So you’re a H.S. graduate…very impressive and from a public school !

      • Ronald Green

        You are too easily impressed. SMH.

      • Illumenatum

        It is sad you think there is actually a distinction between socialism and social democracy. Does the light of reason not penetrate your mind deeply enough for you to perceive that prior to establishing their socialistic governments the Scandinavian countries were much more economically powerful?

      • LibertyDwells

        You actually think there is a functional and not merely semantic and convenient difference in the two?

      • Robert Thorne

        Shit by any other name is still shit.

      • Chris H

        When Reagan was in office income tax on the rich was 50%.

      • Ronald Green

        And it’s much higher now with the Democrats wanting it to go has high 90%. What’s your point?

      • Jim Hoover

        Ronnie the same can be said about you

      • Ronald Green

        Said the troll with nothing of substance to add.

      • Jim Hoover

        what have you contributed other that name calling and false facts?

      • Ronald Green

        A lot more than you, all you’ve achieved is a rather lame attempt at attacking me. But really, what is a “false fact”? In my experience things are either fact or false and cannot be both at the same time.

      • LibertyDwells

        You people and your complete lack of understanding of conservative and leftist, both here and across the pond, is too, too funny. It’s certainly not a conservative party in any functional way excpet, perhaps, relative to some of the extremely left wing parties. But relativism is what it’s all about, eh?

      • Deezdonutz

        Sweden was at the edge of a cliff, as an ubber liberal country..basically socialist. they were not to proud to admit it, and enacted conservative policies that made it one of the best economies in europe. But why dont ppl acknowledge why europe is in bad shape?Socialist policy. And also acknowledge that the only reason socialist countries havent collapsed sooner is that because of the U.S. they dont need to put money into a military of any significance.
        realize that we keep these countries from falling to a more powerful mob style regime. Honestly ask ourselves that if we werent keeping an eye out that communism wouldnt spread like wildfire, as it has been trying the last 100 years. After the war europe needed security like a baby needs his thumb in its mouth, and the only place they think to look is the govt. Germany always falls for the propaganda also but its the only country to actually remember how it ends up, and they keep reverting back to conservative policies to save them, and consequently saving others, like greece, also eroding from socialist policy.

      • Chris H

        Oh you have a crystal ball! What are the powerball numbers for Saturday?

      • Ronald Green

        how about 00000 0. there my crystal ball prognostication just for you.

      • LibertyDwells

        Iceland is doing just fine? You really want to stick by that claim? You might want to do a bit more research on the others as well. Assuming you are more interested in facts than supporting the regressive agenda.

      • SoCalCop

        You may want to actually talk to people in other countries. I have friends in England, and the British people hate their healthcare system. Canadians come to the U.S. because the Canadian healthcare system is so bad. Nice try though.

      • John Withers

        Rich people go from Canada to the US because there they can pay to skip ahead of all middle class and poor Americans in line for the same procedures. In Canada everyone gets the same basic health care, rich or poor, and you have to wait your turn. The waiting time is based on the urgency of the medical need not the size of a persons wallet. Thanks, though for shortening our lines by allowing our rich to go there and get treated based on the size of their wallet rather than by need.

      • SoCalCop

        How much a person has is irrelevant. If Canada’s system is so great, I would suspect that the “rich” would use Canada’s services.

        Gall stones are a fairly serious issue, but my friend in England said that it took him 3 months before he was seen and treated. If that’s what I can expect from Socialized medicine, no thanks.

      • Ronald Green

        Yep, that’s why so many die waiting for that procedure in your utopia and why those who can, come here. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

      • Robert Thorne

        There is no skipping ahead, you go to the doctor, make an appointment or have a walk-in if they’re not busy. Whats that you say? Why wouldn’t they be busy?Because with decentralized private healthcare, there are more hospitals with more doctors competing in a market. People who pay out the ass for their own doctors aren’t stepping over the lower class.

      • Jim Hoover

        It is funny I have friends from Canada and they like their health care just fine maybe you might want to get out more and talk to them on their own turf Instead of the ones who come here for vacation,

      • SoCalCop

        And there are some people (liberals) that think Obama is awesome. Doesn’t change the fact that the system is seriously flawed to the point that people wait months before getting treated.

      • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

        I wait months for treatment all the time, even before Obama was elected. People that think pre Obamacare health care in the U.S. was the best in the world are fucktards. It’s expensive and the insurance companies have TOTAL control over your healthcare. I don’t understand how having a for profit company controlling your healthcare is better than the government regulating that industry and helping defer the cost, but then I have this problem of trying to think for myself and using rationale thought.

      • SoCalCop

        Well, going to the Free clinic isn’t the same as going to a private physician who takes your insurance.
        One thing to note, Obama told those who WERE insured, “If you like your plan, you can keep it”. Obviously that’s not true. As for someone having TOTAL control over your healthcare, according to Obamacare, you still don’t have TOTAL control over your healthcare. The government now does. And even worse, it now costs more, and even worse than that, even you you don’t need, the government is FORCING you to take it. Private control is far more lenient than government controlled health insurance. But how would you know, I’m thinking you’re still living with your parents.

      • juls

        You just proved your lack of understanding of the ACA. Government only regulates the insurance industry. They do not sell or control anything health related. Your private insurance company does. The government controlling the health care industry would be single payer. You know…the nationalized healthcare all other industrialized nations have.

      • SoCalCop

        Well Jim, you assume facts not in evidence. I have friends in the UK and Canada as well. I suppose if you rarily use it, or rely on someone else to pay for it, it’s better than nothing. But all in all, those who can afford to cross the border in Canada and go to private physicians in the US, do so to avoid waiting weeks or even months before a physician will see them. When a person wants, or needs to see a doctor, it’s usually an immediate need, not an emergency, but immediate. And government healthcare, is so inefficient that it is incapable of doing that. Nice try though Jimmy.

      • Scooter

        Then move.

      • Todd

        Iceland was the first country in Europe to go bankrupt after the financial crisis, and the other countries you mention have population’s less than 10 million people. Delaware is financially doing fine as well …. but it certainly isn’t representative of the rest of the US.

      • Jim Hoover

        yes Iceland went bankrupt but here is something they actually put their main bankers in Jail, Something we should have done. Too big to fail what a joke

      • Scott Snoopy

        yeah its working well in Greece, Spain, failing in France and Italy…the healthcare system in England is killing people waiting for treatments…a huge success; much like this so called healthcare reform will bring to the US

      • Sythan

        Do you have any proof the healthcare system is “killing” people? Or are you just another idiot repeating what you’ve heard without actually researching?

        P.S. Obamacare is a cop-out of the corporations, not socialized medicine.

      • Ronald Green

        Always with them negative waves Moriarty, always with them negative waves. Why can’t you say something hopeful and righteous for a change? Instead of just insulting someone.

      • Scott Snoopy

        Ron, that’s what liberal progressives do; attack, deflect, overwhelm the argument with pointless dribble

      • Jim Hoover

        Ron, this is what Conservatives do they keep repeating bull shit hoping that it will become true. Clue no matter how often you repeat Bull shit it is still bull shit

      • Jim Hoover

        Where are you getting your information from disgruntled users

      • Jay Hanig

        Norway is a socialist heaven. If you want to pay a 25% VAT on a new car, you ought to move there.

      • Charles F. Easter

        Bye, enjoy your trip!

      • Todd

        Norway is very Fascist. Try living there before pretending to know what your talking about.

      • Eli Cabelly

        Communism and Fascism are the very opposite ends of the spectrum. Fascism is far right, Communism is far left. They’re not close to each other at all.

      • Ronald Green

        Eli, use Goggle and learn.

      • Eli Cabelly

        I have plenty of goggles. I try not to use my beer goggles anymore though.

        What in the world do goggles have to do with this? Are you insane?

      • Ronald Green

        Okay smart boy, use Bing then.

      • Eli Cabelly

        I stick to google, mainly. I don’t usually look up definitions there though. I start on Wikipedia, then check it.

        All it tells me is that fascism the veneration of the state, and that communism is based on a stateless society. I don’t believe that you can have veneration of the state in a stateless society. Those two societal structures are mutually exclusive.

        You really need to learn what these concepts are before you start using them to people who actually know what we’re talking about. We’ll be laughing at you until you get a clue.

      • Ronald Green

        Thank you for showing your ignorance and arrogance, Perhaps you should broaden your reading list rather than just reading one page on Wikipedia because another of you liberals tried to tell me I shouldn’t believe anything on Wiki.

      • Eli Cabelly

        I’m not a liberal. Anyone who doesn’t believe something just because it’s on a wiki is plain stupid. Anyone who believes it without verifying it is also plain stupid. In this case I was just checking for clarification, because I already know what communism and fascism are.

      • Ronald Green

        Good for you Eli, have a nice day.

      • redc1c4

        which is why the Soviets used to carry on about the “Rodina” aka “Motherland” aka “Mother Russia”, which strikes me as being veneration of the state, or wasn’t the Soviet Union communist?

      • Eli Cabelly

        As I study Russia more and more, I’m beginning to think that russian communism started with Marx and ended with Stalin. Everything after that seems like it was simply hoarded by politicians at the top and nothing was allowed to trickle down to the bottom. Truly communist redistribution failed because of greed for power at the top.

        Also, as I listen to it, Mother Russia and the Fatherland both sound a lot like Homeland Security.

      • Bailey Summers

        United Soviet Socialist Republic.

      • Jim Hoover

        Ronnie, are you really that dense? You misspelled GOOGLE

      • Ronald Green

        Really. I am so glad you pointed that out to me. But I won’t edit it, I want you to go away from here feeling superior. It’s the only reason you’re here so I don’t want to spoil that for you. Got any other startling revelations for us?

      • Jim Hoover

        fortunately it is not hard to feel superior to such a dense little boy as you. As for me going away until trolls like you log off this system you’re stuck with me and I will post after you till you get sick of me and leave the only difference I won’t post lies like you LOL

      • Ronald Green

        Have fun with yourself. Cause you can’t run me off anything. If you haven’t noticed this thread is dead. Bye Bye!

      • Jim Hoover

        yet you’re still here! go figure. LOL

      • Jim Hoover

        oh you mean Wikipedia, Ronald, just because something is posted on Wikipedia doesn’t make it correct It does not fact check. I can make a website that says that the sky is orange and within two months people will be arguing that the sky is orange because it was posted on the internet

      • Ronald Green

        Just because you can run a computer doesn’t make you anything but a troll.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        You should take that advice. Communism is a pure, democratic form of economics, which is supposed to be combined with a pure, democratic form of government.

        Fascism is the exact opposite.

      • Ronald Green

        Hahahahaaa.

      • Bailey Summers

        Take a poli-sci class google…yeah…

      • Ronald Green

        STFU

      • Bailey Summers

        You’re a toad, a noxious little toad.

      • Ronald Green

        Did you just wake up from a drug induced stupor and have a brain fart or did your mom just let you back in the basement again?

      • CV

        WRONG, they are variations of the same thing. Anarchists are at the far end of the right wing.

      • Bill Adams

        Historically the end result of both is oppression.

      • EdEKit

        Ronald Green, your confusion is based on the absence of a clear comprehension of the word “Totalitarian.”

        to·tal·i·tar·i·an
        /tōˌtaliˈte(ə)rēən/Adjective
        Of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.
        Noun
        A person advocating such a system of government.

        Both Fascist and Communist systems share the characteristic of totalitarianism. In the Fascist System individuals own large swaths of the economy. As in the Feudal system of a Monarchy, or PURE Capitalist system. The Communist System gives all ownership to the government.

      • Ronald Green

        The only one confused here is you as you attempt to further obfuscate the subject. How about you go up and actually read what I wrote about Fascism before you kick anymore dust in the air.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Wrong. Communism gives ownership of the means of production to the workers, not the government.

        The government is supposed to be a direct democracy, per Marx’s writing as well, and it’s only role is to protect the rights of workers.

      • Jim Hoover

        Ronald Green, where did you ever get that definition of Fascism? Capitalism is so far from communism and both concepts work against each other and cannot be combined

      • Ronald Green

        Well, you can Google it and run it that way or go to a library, but that will take a while. I know well that the two are polar opposites. However Fascism is not Communism nor Capitalism. It combines elements of both as it’s economic philosophy, which is why I said it is a blend of both. Yes it is a totalitarian system, the communist side of it rather makes that a necessity.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Sigh… Bro, do you even understand Government 101?

      • Ronald Green

        Hahahahaha another delusional liberal, go play with yourself.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Which is it? Fascists or Communists? They are polar opposites, you know, right?

      • Ronald Green

        Polar opposites would be Capitalism and Communism. Fascisim as an economic institution is a form of Socialism as is National Socialism or the Nazis. Communism is just the most extreme form of Socialism. If you wish to argue on this long dead thread, it would be better for you to do a quick study of economic institutions. Google is your friend in that endeavor.

        As political institutions the three ( Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism ) are first cousins and require total control of most, if not all, of the economic and political structures of a society. They also require total obedience to the government.

        How the term ‘fascist’ got to be associated with ‘conservatives’ is simply from repetitive use by ignorant people. It has been applied to liberal administrations as well and is usually thrown around by neo-anarchists at whom ever they happen to disagree with at the moment. I can’t explain it better than that and if that is not satisfactory to you, then believe what you wish.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Sight… Communism is a direct democracy, and both a system of government and a system of economics. That sounds pretty “left” to me, contrast with fascism which is completely right wing.

        The reason why conservatives have been associated with fascism is because they are both right wing, and today’s conservatives in the US bear a striking resemblance to many other fascist regimes.

      • Ronald Green

        You are nothing but a liberal fool and I really don’t give a shitt what you think. So you can stop trying to convince me of the “rightness” of your communist worship. Go perform several sexual acts on yourself and drop over dead. Can I say this any clearer. I Don’t Care What Stupidity Is In Your Head.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        That’s the cognitive dissonance in your head causing the anger. Don’t worry. Once you incorporate new facts, it’ll go away.

      • Ronald Green

        You are a commie fool and the only thing that needs to “go away”, is you. Having read most of your drivel, all I can say is you really are a fool. If Communism is so great, why has it failed everywhere? And don’t throw any of your stupid propaganda at me.

        Communism is not ‘democratic’ and cannot survive in any form of a democratic government, because it goes against human nature. It can only survive where the government coerces the workers to produce and that takes a dictatorship. Which most people tend to object to.

        There is No Utopia and there never will be. Especially not a communist one.

      • Ronald Green

        You are a commie fool and the only thing that needs to “go away”, is you. Having read most of your drivel, all I can say is you really are a fool. If Communism is so great, why has it failed everywhere? And don’t throw any of your stupid propaganda at me.

        Communism is not ‘democratic’ and cannot survive in any form of a democratic government, because it goes against human nature. It can only survive where the government coerces the workers to produce and that takes a dictatorship. Which most people tend to object to.

        There is No Utopia and there never will be. Especially not a communist one.

      • redc1c4

        wrong, as usual, Fascism is a socialist construct, and thus just as far left as regular socialism, communism and the Democratic party here in the US.

        after all, Hitler was the head of the National *Socialist* German W*rkers’ Party”… wanna try again?

      • James

        the issue of a group being socialist or communist is neither here nor there, if you think so then condemn Jesus Christ (if you believe in him) his teachings are most definitely along the lines of that social ideology, and if you think not and you are Christian (or not) then you are very confused and are a large part of the insane Religious (or non-R) problem here in the states.

      • Illumenatum

        And Jesus said,—“render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”. His underlying philosophy was that good begets good while evil begets evil. Governments have no power (money) to do good or evil without the consent of the people from whom they derive their power (money). If the people are too cowardly or morally corrupt to put a stop to evil, then you see the rise of tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. All of whom pretty well disarmed the general population to facilitate robbing them of their funds and their lives Remarkable that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment 150 years earlier to insure that Americans would not fall prey to such tyrants.

      • Iain Morrison

        [email protected]… Even with loads of guns, there is no way normal people could defeat the world’s biggest military! LMAO

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        The purpose of the second amendment was to provide for an armed militia; not to encourage insurrection.

        Putting down insurrection by the militia is laid out in Article 1, sec 8; at the behest of the president.

      • Iain Morrison

        You dumb hick…the Nazis were far right-wing. The National Socialist German Worker’s Party was a cover name, should you care to learn some history…it was meant to be deceptive! The Nazis HATED Communism…it was the opposite ideology!

      • CV

        Another lefty that won’t claim the National socialists as lefties. LOL How the left loves to rewrite history. Just because to lefists forms of government don’t like each other means nothing.

      • Iain Morrison

        Oxford English Dictionary definition of ‘Nazi’ – read it and weep!

        noun (plural Nazis) historical
        a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
        derogatory a person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
        a person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way:I learned to be more open and not such a Nazi in the studio
        The
        Nazi Party was formed in Munich after the First World War. It advocated
        right-wing authoritarian nationalist government, and developed a racist
        ideology based on anti-Semitism and a belief in the superiority of
        ‘Aryan’ Germans. Its leader, Adolf Hitler, who was elected Chancellor in
        1933, established a totalitarian dictatorship and precipitated the
        Second World War. The Nazi Party collapsed at the end of the War and was
        outlawed

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Because they weren’t leftists. Check out the political compass to see where major world leader lie at.

      • bobrien2

        Hardly the opposite, both require totalitarianism/

      • Iain Morrison

        You do realise that totalitarianism can spring from opposing ideologies, right?

      • Freddy Marmolejo

        HAHAHA Are you freakin kiddin me!? The Nazi party being right wing? Let’s break it down. Far right wing is where anarchist line up. They want essentially no government. On the far left we have communist. They want everything controlled by the government. I know I’m over simpifying but humor me. Everyone else, republicans, democrats, libertarians, etc, fall somewhere on that spectrum. You are seriously trying to say that the Nazi party was far right? Did you ever take history? Better yet, google the hell out of it, and not just reading liberal interpretations of history. The Nazi party believed in a form of communism that included: complete gun control (Democratic dream) and an incredibly strong military (Republican goal). The Nazi party was not 100% right nor 100% left. It was its own breed of stupid ideology that did lean slightly to the left. Hence the bread lines and socialized healthcare. Get your head out of your @ss.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Sigh… Anarchists are about as left as one can get (In reality, there’s not much difference between extreme right, and extreme left).

        Communism is about control of the means of production by the workers, and the style of government is a direct democracy. That’s all.

        The only role of government in a communist nation would be to ensure the rights of workers.

      • zac

        Google the National Socialist German Worker’s Party or look it up and Wikipedia. It was a wholly right wing fascist party hell bent on racial cleansing, genocide, and war. Why do you thing the Neo-Nazi groups are related to the KKK and Aryan Nation and actually BANNED in semi-socialist Germany today???

      • Joe Patriot

        So, let me get this straight. You’re equating today’s American political right, which supports a citizens right to bare arms and limited government control to the political right of 1920’s Germany, which prohibited fire arms, invaded all it’s neighbors, murdered any opposition to it’s political ideology, murdered jews, gyspsies, homosexuals, mentally challenged, handicapped, etc., and government control of EVERYTHING. Need I say anymore?

      • 68chimera

        You mean – no shirt sleeves?

      • Brian Frang

        No, we’re equating today’s political right. which supports white supremacy over minorities, making homosexuality illegal and punishable, makinng women into second-class citizens and touting the evils of big government while using THAT EXACT SAME BIG GOVERNMENT to push their religious and ideological viewpoints onto people who disagree with them and calling their opponents oppressors and traitors, with the Nazi party of the 1920s, which touted the EXACT SAME VALUES.

      • Joe Patriot

        Where the hell are you getting your information? I’m in the military, from a family of military, everyone I know is “right” and you are not describing anyone I’ve ever associated with so maybe you should get out more often and join the real world. I haven’t heard any right wingers pushing Christianity on anyone! To the contrary, you liberals have been shoving homosexuality down our Christian throats for decades and forcing our children to learn it in school; trying to take any reference to Christianity out of everyday life. News flash for you pal, the vast majority of Americans are Christian and our number’s are growing. The race card isn’t working anymore and if we’re trying to make women second class citizens than why are there so many female conservatives out there. Get real!

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Gee, I never learned about gay people in school. And I don’t recall any of us liberals ever talking about closing churches, shutting down Sunday schools, burning Bibles, stomping on crosses, closing down private religious schools, etc. What I have heard is a lot of Christians saying that this is a “Christian” country–forget all those Americans who are of a different faith–that the Ten Commandments should be posted in every public building–even though every American has the right to post them in their homes, IF THEY CHOOSE TO–and that Christians beliefs–like “Let’s get rid of the gays, the agnostics, the atheists, the Muslims and the Hindus!”–should take precedence over the rights listed in the Constitution. Plus a lot of crap that runs contrary to what I remember Jesus commanding his followers to do in the Bible-yes, I’ve read the Bible!– such as sneering at the poor, kicking the sick to the curb to die, telling the hungry to “get a job” (WHEN THERE ARE NO JOBS), etc. etc. I keep checking Matthew 25, 31-45 to make sure I read Christ’s description of the “righteous” correctly…and damn, it sure doesn’t sound like today’s right wingers!

      • Iain Morrison

        No…most so-called Christians in America, are fundamentalists, who don’t preach anything like what is written in the Bible. For pity’s sake…my fundamentalist American mother-in-law believes in unicorns…

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Never heard any of them pushing christianity? Not one bit?

        How about removing the ten commandments from courthouses?

        Just a single example.

      • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

        Actually Christianity in the U.S. is shrinking, that’s a fact. Most people that claim to be Christian in the U.S. don’t even attend church regularly much less ACT like Christians. Hey Sparky conservative women sure didn’t help elect Barack Obama, but independent and liberal women sure as hell did.

      • CV

        You know nothing about the right other than what you’ve been programmed to believe. Wake up before it’s too late!!!

      • Scooter

        Simple Brian, if you don’t like it, leave, and please take Mr. Obama, Nancy and harry with you. Bye..

      • redc1c4

        which planet do you live on, because it’s sure not the one where this blog is originally posted.

      • Robert Thorne

        Actually by definition, that’s the democratic party. The popular vote during women’s suffrage and equality for minorities was against above liberty.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Uh, Nazi Germany did NOT prohibit firearms for the German people. Actually, der Fuehrer told German citizens that they should buy guns. Lots of them. Which later helped them invade their neighbors, murder Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc.
        Need I say more?

      • Iain Morrison

        It didn’t prohibit firearms…most Germans were allowed them, and encouraged to have them. The Jews were banned from owning firearms…not the majority of Germans. Learn some history.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Well, limited government. Unless it involves your religion, your uterus, or your sexual orientation.

        So, um, yeah. Today’s right wing in the US bear an awful similarity to other totalitarian regimes in the past.

      • CV

        Just because something is in a wiki doesn’t mean it’s gospel. The extreme right of the right wing is Anarchism not Fascism. The right wing is about less government not more. Fascism is a totalitarian form of government with very little in the control of private hands and even then the government has the last word. Neo-nazis and the KKK want this type of government control for themselves. It’s the left that labels them as right-wing wackos when they truly belong amongst you lefties.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        “The extreme right of the right-wing”?
        Gee, it they’re a bunch of “lefties” why do even you label them as part of the “right wing”? Why don’t you say, loud and often ,that you want nothing to do with them?
        Oh, wait, logic is never y’alls strong suit.

      • Iain Morrison

        Wrong…and anarchism can be left OR right wing… It doesn’t have a political leaning.

      • SoCalCop

        Actually, you’re wrong. The fact of the matter is, the Nazis were just another flavor of Socialism, the fact that the Nazi flag is red is an indicator of this.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        So the red stripes on our flag mean we’re all Commies? Gosh!

      • SoCalCop

        The Red in the Nazi and Communist flags were representative of Socialism. The red in the American flag is not a prominent feature but represents the blood shed by patriots.

        Don’t they teach this stuff in school anymore ?

      • Cathryn Sykes

        If you can’t tell the difference between National Socialism–which was just a front name for what we now call fascism–and actual socialism, you’re the one who needs to go back to school.

      • SoCalCop

        Yeah, I love how lefties distance themselves from the Nazis, but have no problem embracing Stalin, Lenin, Marx, and chairman Mao.

        I had a Sociology instructor, who carried a copy of the Communist Manifesto, try and convince me of the value of Communism. Pretty funny when you think about it, when you consider that my Great grandfather had to escape from Russia to keep from being killed by the Bolsheviks. My friends mother and grandparents excaped from Germany during WWII. They pretty much told me just how left leaning the Nazis were.

        So go ahead, believe what you want. I’ve spoken to people who had first hand knowledge of what the Nazis were/are.

      • Iain Morrison

        You live in the US, and don’t understand your own politics…it obviously runs in the family…

      • SoCalCop

        And I suppose you think you’re going to teach me.

        I’m sorry. You live where ?

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        I don’t think many on the left embrace Mao or Stalin. Lenin and Marx weren’t actually bad, to be honest.

        In fact, Lenin was likely assassinated by Stalin, because he was in the process of conversion from socialism to true communism, by de-centralizing power from the national government unto the regional governments, and finishing organizing the workers.

        Marx only wrote the Communist Manifesto, which more or less just lays out the tenets of communism. It’s not like he was a world leader, just an author.

      • Iain Morrison

        ‘Social movement’ (which is how the symbolism of the red was described by Hitler), and ‘socialism’ are two different things.

      • Iain Morrison

        No it isn’t, you complete fool…

      • SoCalCop

        Says the dumbass with nothing to say but call people names.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        The National Socialist Party called themselves socialists, true.

        However, if I call a turd a rose; does it mean it’s actually a rose, or is it still a turd?

      • redc1c4

        the KKK was founded by the Democratic party to suppress the rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, just as the Democratic party passed Jim Crow laws and fought the Civil Rights act in the 50’s & 60’s.

        but go ahead and believe anything you want: you have a constitutional right to be stupid.

      • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

        You’re correct the southern democrats did form the KKK but later during the 20th century that same group of democrats aligned and registered as Republicans. It happens all the time Sparky. People change parties. Find me a democratic KKK member today…I’ll wait.

      • Sythan

        Fascism is a blend of state and private corporate control, it’s not socialist. Socialism is left of social democracy, communism is far-left.

        The Democratic Party is center-right conservative. Go to any European country and tell them that the US Democrats are leftists, you’ll get laughed out of the country.

      • kman68

        you mean like George Soros owning the Democratic party? Nice try, but a tragic fail!

      • adcbeast

        @kman68:disqus .. Get Off the Fox News Plantation

      • Scott Snoopy

        ahhhh…no facist, communist, socialist national socialist…they vary on the amount of “freedom” the gubmint allows its subjects. They are all leftist leanings no matter what the modern liberal progressives think. None of them work well with free, responsible people who believe in capitalism and the freedom to succeed/fail.

      • Tax payer

        Sorry but you fail thanks for playing The Nazi’s were the socialist party not right wing! Every government that has taken arms away from the people to over throw them were left wing!

      • Iain Morrison

        Wrong…

      • Picky Wassah

        just communist…like the National socialist…oh wait the Nazis…

      • LibertyDwells

        That’s so cute how some few of you keep trying to claim fascism is “right wing” when the argument is US politics. Learn what “right and left” mean here vs Europe. And now vs 80 years ago.

        First, even then and there “Fascism” was centralized state(federal) control of everything. It simply added the element of big business, those who would go along, for practicality’s sake. In short, it made the trains run on time which Communism could never seem to do.

        Today it’s a muddied concept at best, but one the left in the US embraces. The left supports the Uber-State. More government exerting more control on business, land, homes, travel, income, medicine, what is viewed, how we speak, where and what, etc. That leads to one of the funiest conceits of the modern left, the label “Progressive”. In fact you support a litany of failed, antiquated policies of the past and are the functional definition of regressive.

        The modern right, for better or worse, advocates minimalism in government. That includes corporate welfare and corporate involvement in government. While the right may want to try and meddle in your sex lives, likely a problem, true, the left wants to literally control everything else. So label the modern left Fascist, Socialist, Communist, whatever. The simple fact is it’s not “modern” and it’s not at all “progressive”.

        Next you’ll be trying to tell people party labels mean something, or reflect right vs left stances effectively.

      • CV

        Geez, you need to go back to school, Observing nothing. The levels of right wing fanaticism range from social liberals (yes, there are a few right-wing liberals), moderates, conservatives, libertarians, and finally anarchists. As you can plainly observe, this ranges from government involved mainly in welfare but not the economy to no government at all at the extreme end. Fascism and communism are both products of left-wing societies as is the less extreme socialism and progressivisms. Of course no society has ever achieved communism and has ended up with and extreme form of socialism or fascism instead. Funny how the leftists governments don’t get along when they are basically the same form of government. Most people point to Hitler as being a fascist but even he named his party the National Socialists. He knew he was a left winger but the lefties refuse to claim him. I wonder why? 🙂

      • Eli Cabelly

        Then why did the Nazis persecute communists, if they’re both the same thing?

      • Iain Morrison

        The name ‘National Socialist German Worker’s Party’ was deliberately meant to be deceptive. Which Mickey Mouse school did you attend?

      • John Galt

        Fucking idiot. Hitler was a Fascist, just like Obama, FAR LEFT.

      • Eli Cabelly

        Fascism grows out of corporatism, according to Mussolini. Corporatism is on the right, fascism is farther right than that.

        Fascists usually proclaim their extreme patriotism and their love of guns and allow corporate interests to control their lives and their government while clinging to their state religions. That sounds like the Tea Party in the USA.

      • John Galt

        Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power = executive orders, bypassing the Constitution with NSA and IRS monitoring violating privacy. Fasicms is a DICKTator like Obama, whining about ObamaCare and willing to unemploy 100s of thousands of people to get his way because he can’t stop spending. Mussolini was a dictator, far left! Marxist is farther left than socialist and communist is even farther left. Tea Party wants LESS gov, less surveillance, less taxation and less govt dependence. There is nothing wrong with Capitalism, rather the flaw is human, its greed. that flaw exists in any form of Gov or political structure!

      • Eli Cabelly

        Wow, have you read anything other than Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead? Are you aware how flawed is the world-view of your heroine, Ayn Rand?

        Here’s a hint, try picking up a dictionary sometime. It might clue you in to the differences between fascism and communism. However, you might find the dictionary to be too biased for you, since it’s based in reality.

      • Iain Morrison

        Far-right. Moron.

      • EdEKit

        fas·cism An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
        (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

        COMMUNISM
        a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
        b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
        both from Marriam-Webster

      • gaige

        Given that both Hitler and Mussolini were essentially the original Fascists, and both were socialists, I’m going to call bullshit on Fascism being a right-wing ideology. By European lights, certainly. But not on the American spectrum.

      • Eli Cabelly

        Mussolini said that fascism grew out of corporatism, and you’re going to argue with him about fascism?

        The Nazi Party was originally called the National Socialist Party, one of the biggest misnomers I’ve ever seen. It’s almost as bad as Military Intelligence.

        You’re calling bullshit on the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Wow. Epic fail.

      • gaige

        So you’re saying we should take Mussolini’s word on the origin of Fascism, but we should ignore the Nazi’s calling themselves socialists?

        Which is it? Do we take the totalitarians’ word for it, or don’t we? Or do we only do it when it serves your vapid and dishonest rhetoric?

      • Eli Cabelly

        I’m saying that we start from the definitions and use other sources for clarification. Fascism is the veneration of the state, and it grows out of corporatism. Socialism, or the democratic socialism that we sometimes practice in the USA, is the people voting to pool our resources to accomplish something that we could not achieve on our own.

        Just look at history, and you’ll clearly see that the Nazis were fascist. Furthermore, nationalism is a basis of fascism. Socialism can be a part of nationalism, but it can also be entirely separate from nationalism, based on the means of pooling resources for the common good. The Nazis did not pool their resources, they owned all the resources and persecuted and subjugated their citizens. The Nazis, according to the definition of socialism, were not socialists.

      • Iain Morrison

        But they weren’t socialists…

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        You missed the primary point here: A patriot is NOT one who is attempting to overthrow the nation… That’s a traitor.

        So, in essence, all of those rural sheriffs are violating their oath of office if they support traitors and sedition.

      • John Miles

        yes our sons and relatives would join in defending America against all enemies foreign or domestic! dolt!

      • redc1c4

        you might try reading the actual oath: we swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

        that would be the unhinged lieberals who want to create a fascist state with our SCOAMF as Ear Leader…

        personally, i’d rather have a rodeo clown in the White House: at least they’ve w*rked for a living and are grounded in reality.

      • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

        a job that requires clown makeup is grounded in reality?

      • Joe Patriot

        “they” meaning the people in America who understand the U.S. military oath of enlistment, and understand that those of us who raised our right hand took that oath very seriously? I have some news for you, “they” are the cops and the military.

      • Unit322

        The majority of military and sheriff’s departments around the country have already pledged support against a tyrannical regime here in America. It isn’t a rumor, it is truth. How do we know? Because they contact us everyday in the Constitutional militias. They are oath keepers and care about the oath they took, as well as their families and communities. The only exceptions at this time are mostly from police in metro areas who are unionized, and being a union man myself, are told to vote for democrats always. Police Chiefs are political appointees, whereas Sheriffs are voted for by the people. You might want to turn off your mainstream news and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

      • Eli Cabelly

        So they’ve pledged themselves to treason? Ok.

      • redc1c4

        no, they’ve pledged to be bound by their oath’s of service.

        i can understand why integrity would confuse a lieberal: y’all have none.

      • Eli Cabelly

        I’m not a liberal. I’m a conservative who’s pledged myself to my country through the military and who doesn’t seek to change the country.

        Most of those on the right who call themselves “conservatives” are actually radicals who want to use their private militias to overthrow their government and impose their rule on the local populace.

      • Yojimbo556

        Its apparent you have never served in the military. You just assume without any knowledge of how they think. One thing leftists like you lament at your parties and social functions is that our military is a volunteer force. You can mock them by calling them “our bottom 10%” or whatever but they are all still volunteers and a good majority of them are driven by duty.

        Hopefully Comrade Obama will correct this with a draft and replace the volunteers with conscripts whos fear of “comrade commissar” outweighs any sense of duty.

      • redc1c4

        Draftees would cut and run at the first sign of organized resistance, unless there was a penal guard behind them to shoot deserters…

      • kman68

        we already see the sheriffs are already choosing sides and siding with the 2am. don’t laugh, it’s happening RIGHT NOW!

      • tonybazz

        That is exactly what these nut cases believe. There is “information” out there for these vulnerable hillbillies to saddle up with and it is scary how many of them exist.

      • Ronald Green

        I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not the government, nor some egomaniac President trying to subvert that Constitution. I held to that oath for 20 years. Every service person that is serving or has served has taken that oath. I still hold to that oath. It’s obvious you do not. I speak from experience that you don’t know what you’re talking about. And again, when all you have is liberal insults, you got no argument.

      • SteveLynnCleamer

        Lol. As an Army Infantryman, I wouldn’t bear arms against citizens of the US. You silly freedom haters.

      • John E. Conway

        Then you are a deserter and a traitor and a disgrace to the uniform, as you have been sworn to defend against all threats both foreign AND DOMESTIC. I took the same other when I served in the army. You dont get to pick and choose the lawful orders you follow. you either fire, or you will be either shot yourself, or arrested. Your choice, and they dont have a lot of time to be arresting their own in the heat of battle.

      • redc1c4

        sorry, but either your memory is bad or you weren’t really int eh uniform, John-boy. the oath says you will defend the Constitution against all threats. (see below)

        I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
        defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
        foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
        same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United
        States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to
        regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

        i should know: i took it more than once in the 20+ years i was in uniform, and am still bound to it of my own free will. i am a citizen, not a slave.

      • John E. Conway

        I do remember that, I did not say otherwise. But thank you for posting the entirety of the oath, it has been over 20 years since I took it. Let it sink in for a bit because by refusing to fire on civilians who are rising up in violation of the law you are breaking it in many areas. The Second amendment allows for controls, and it allows for some bans. It does not allow for an outright ban of all private firearm ownership, and any ban would have to be reasonable. Gun owners have to stop being unreasonable and realize that they keep forgetting about the “well regulated militia” portion of the second amendment that no longer exists in this nation that was the entire purpose of the amendment in the first place.

      • Ronald Green

        The oath is to the Constitution, not some megalomaniac in office, no matter who he might be. You also have an obligation to refuse illegal orders. Try again.

      • John E. Conway

        It isn’t an illegal order if it was voted into law. If it is a single decree by one person, yes, that is overstepping. But if it is the law of the land, then sorry, you have to live with it. The Second amendment was meant to ensure our militias remained armed to defend our nation, because we had no standing army. Our citizens had nothing to fear from the government because it had no teeth, no army, no soldiers of its own. Only the citizenry itself. In order to defend ourselves, we had to make sure that our people could remain armed. Eventually we found we needed a standing army, but we took a long time to get there. But the amendment remained, without its initial, original purpose. Does t still have purpose? Yes, I believe so. But it is no more absolute than the right to fee speech, which also has its limits, such as you cannot spread lies (libel, slander), you cannot incite a riot, you cannot threaten another person with bodily harm (assault), etc. Reasonable limits and controls are all we are asking for. No one is asking for a complete and total ban.

      • Ronald Green

        There are already reasonable limits on gun ownership. It is illegal for ex-felons and those judged mentally unfit, (i.e. those insane or otherwise mentally incapacitated.) to possess as firearm. In every state in the union, you must undergo a background check before taking possession of a firearm. Those are reasonable limits.

        But the left wants to go much farther with complete bans on semi-automatic firearms when it is completely legal, with provisions, to own a fully automatic firearm, wide sweeping exclusions based on what some government bureaucrat says based on unproven accusations against certain types of individuals. This is where you start down a very dangerous slippery slope.

        I wish you were right that no one is calling for a complete ban, but the likes of Diane Fienstien and Charles Schumer and many others have done just that. Both Diane and Charles have put it on the public record that they are for total bans.

        If, in 1776, a third of the American colonists had not revolted against the ‘law of the land’, we would still be under the English crown. The Declaration of Independence spells out that we hold it our right to remove a government that has become destructive of our liberties and replace it with one that we find more suitable or have you forgotten that?

        Has it come to that yet? I don’t think so. Could it come to that? Within the realm of possibilities, most certainly, it could. One of those possibilities is if the government attempts to disarm the American people. In that case, it probably will come to that.

      • John E. Conway

        OK, that is not true. First, I know for a fact in most states they do not require background checks at gun shows, otherwise, we would not be asking for that still, which was the whole point of the universal background check legislation.

        Secondly, no one is looking to ban all semi automatics except the fringe, as it simply is not reasonable or logical. There are a specific type of semiauto’s that are favored by those committing these mass shooting type crimes that they are looking at banning, and it would only put a ban on a small part of the semiauto market. The same ban that existed before and no one’s rights were lost and we had fewer of these shootings. It may have been coincidence, I dont know. I really dont know if a ban on such a small part of the market would accomplish much, I dont think it would make any difference. We obviously have a problem with people being raised to think only of themselves and their rights above everyone else’s, which is the libertarian point of view and dangerous to our nation.

        Next, the Declaration of Independence does not spell out our rights. It stated to England that we had had enough of many things, such as taxation without representation, boarding soldiers in our homes, and a whole litany list of other offenses before we finally said, “You know what, enough is enough.” The republicans and gun nuts are talking about rising up because we want background checks. Its a child throwing a temper tantrum because it didn’t get its way. The two do not even compare.

        Again, the government will not try to disarm the people, not in our lifetime, probably not in the next fifty years. The day may come when we grow up and give up our gun fixation and join the civilized world. I hope so. But you and I will not live to see it most likely.

      • Ronald Green

        Well, I do beg to differ on you’re background checks statement. It is true that in every state in the Union to buy from a Dealer, you must undergo a back ground check no matter where you buy from him, at his shop, at a gun show, or even at his home. Now I am not a dealer but I can rent a table a gun show and sell my guns if I want to pay the registration fee. That is the point that Diane and Charles are having fits about. And I think it is the point that creates so much confusion about this gun show issue. If you want to do something useful about that, then change the laws in each State and make it so you must be a Dealer to sell at gun shows.

        If you wish to call Senator Diane Fienstien and Senator Charles Schumer the fringe, well I can agree with that as I see the both of them as pretty much looneytoons. The guns that are preferred in most of these mass shootings and other crimes are mostly 9mm and .40 caliber semi-automatic hand guns. The type favored by cops btw.The Newtown, Aurora theater, and Columbine shootings are really the only ones that involved a rifle. Why do we need to ban any semi-automatic rifles when they are used in what is actually a very small percentage of these incidents and crimes as a whole? As you said, it really would not make much difference. It is indeed a people problem more than a hardware problem as the individual who commits to doing something like this will find a way. Be it with a gun or guns, or a car, or a bomb.

        And no the Declaration of Independence is not the Bill of Rights, it is where we stated that we hold it our right to replace, or separate ourselves from, an abusive government. Remember we weren’t voting King George out of office. We told him we were leaving by any means necessary. The ‘republicans’ are not talking about doing anything of the sort nor are ‘gun nuts’. There are gun owners who are discussing the possibility IF the government continues to press it’s anti-gun push.

        Can we keep it civil? I happen to be a gun owner and a shooting enthusiast, does that make me a ‘gun nut’? I can tell you are quite alarmed by the possibility of another revolution, perhaps even fearful of it. But we have not come to that yet. It is hysterical statements that too often lead to rash decisions and create crisis where none needed to be.

        The incident that led to the Clinton gun ban was the Lubie’s shooting in Killeen Texas where the shooter crashed his truck into the restaurant and opened fire with two 9mm pistols hoping to kill his girlfriend whom he thought was there. He had no rifle with him or in his truck. And yet Bill banned semi-automatic rifles. I know this because I was driving by the place when it happened. Killeen Tx. is the post town next to Ft. Hood, where I was stationed at the time. I’m telling you this to point out that the Left, call them the fringe if you like, is trying to ban all firearms using any pretext or incident available. They know that trying to do it all at once isn’t going to go over well so they try to do it a little at the time. I hope you are right and they give up on it, but it doesn’t appear like they will.

        Remember that only 1/3 of the colonists actively supported the Revolution. Another 1/3 actively opposed it joining with the British and fighting against it. The other 1/3 either wanted to be left out of it or were trying to profit from both sides. We have not gotten to the point where 1/3 of US citizens are fed up with our government enough to try and do something. That 1/3 number is the historical tipping point for this sort of thing.

        The key to preventing us from getting to that percentage is not gun bans. That will just lead us there all the faster. It is doing something about the real causes of these things. Such as having people that are genuinely mentally incompetent running around lose on the streets. Actually creating the economic climate that creates good paying jobs to fight poverty. Not creating a class of people dependent on the government and locked into poverty because of it. Honestly, if you don’t want a gun, don’t buy one. But wanting to ban gun because of an irrational fear of guns and gun owners will not help anything.

      • John E. Conway

        Considering that 1/3 back them were using only muskets, and 1/3 today would be contending against aircraft, gunships, armored vehicles and all manor of other weaponry, including ones that can literally fry you from the inside out, I dont think they really have much to fear from the citizenry, and you are kidding yourself if you think they do. A third world nation vs an armed uprising using 1970’s tech is one thing; a completely modern military would be another. And dont think that the military would not support them against an uprising. it would. Sure, some would be traitors to their oaths, but the majority would follow the law (this is assuming it is a law passed and being enforced and not just a power grab). But when you create a climate of fear, and keep people uneducated, prevent them from having healthcare, sex education, effective contraception, and create a situation where only a select few will rise above because the resources are limited, well you end up with a society that cannot think for itself and believes whatever lies you tell it. Some of us are trying to prevent that from happening.

        And if you think we are not headed there then why do I keep hearing people like Alex Jones calling for it? You talk about Diane Feinstein, Ill Talk about Rick Perry who all but called for secession not a year or two ago. There are lots of people actively calling for secession or revolution, and honestly, there just is not reason compared to what we had to go through with England. All I hear are petulant children crying because they are afraid of not getting their way anymore. I am sorry if that offends; you are right that I should try to be more civil. I do not mean this to be personal.

        But the facts are that guns are just too easy to get, and not nearly respected enough. when you create a culture that worships guns and does not treat them with respect people get hurt. Total bans I think are wrong personally (at least until this name grows up, which wont be in our lifetime, or likely our kids lifetime), and partial bans seem silly as they dont address the issue. So controls have to be put into place, like background checks (And lets be honest, its not universal if not everyone is being checked, is it?) at shows and stores. Maybe bionetics, to prevent anyone but the owner from using a firearm (I could see some gruesome new crimes cropping up from that).

        In the end though, We don’t have an irrational fear of guns and gun owners. the fear is well founded. If it were not for guns and gun owners, I would not have to worry about being shot at all. You cannot argue against that. What it comes down to is my right to live safely vs your right to own a gun. And more and more, the evidence is adding up that gun owners cannot be trusted to keep their weapons safely. if they could, there would be no problem. If they would just act responsibly with their weapons, there would be no problems. But they dont, just like people dont act responsibly with their vehicles. And so because of that, because we cannot trust that gun owners will act responsibly, we have to keep this going.

      • Ronald Green

        Well, given that crime in general and gun violence as well, is increasing in places that essentially banned private gun ownership like England and Australia really shows that these bans just create a larger pool of victims to choose from. You are right, if nobody had guns, no one would get shot except with arrows. They’d get their heads bashed in with bats, stabbed to death with knives, blown up with bombs, and all the other things that humanity uses to kill each other. That statement alone is indicative of an irrational fear of guns. Some 80, 000,000 gun owners didn’t kill anybody today, or yesterday, or the day before but yet you call them irresponsible. I haven’t killed anybody since the 1st Gulf War and haven’t felt the need to do so either, maybe something is wrong with my guns… I don’t know.

        I strongly suspect that you never served in the military hence all this talk about traitors and how they will oppose anything but I can see how you would want to believe that. Back when Bill was pushing his gun ban the government sent a ‘survey’ around. He wanted to know if the military would support a measure to confiscate privately owned weapons. Let’s just say he was very disappointed with the results of his survey.

        “But when you create a climate of fear, and keep people uneducated, prevent them from having healthcare, sex education, effective contraception, and create a situation where only a select few rise above because the resources are limited, well you end up with a society that cannot think for itself and believes what ever lies you tell it.” …. What country do you come from? ‘Cause all that nonsense doesn’t describe where I come from. Quite frankly, the left’s intolerance of any who disagree with or go against their group think does not give me much confidence that they are trying to create a society that can think for itself.

        Let’s briefly address your initial statement. Starting in 1776 1/3 of the American colonists took up arms against the one of the best trained and best equipped armies in the world at that time. We had two advantages over them. One was distance from England and the other was we had lots of rifled muskets and they had mostly smooth bore muskets giving us a tactical range advantage. Both advantages played into our eventual victory. If you didn’t catch that, we had better guns than the best Army in the world at that time. Even with that, I have come to strongly suspect that if you had been around in 1776, you would have been in a Red Coat. Also take note that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have manged to give our very modern military fits to the point of fighting us to a stand still with mostly just rifles, machine guns, and mortars. The one thing common to both conflicts is the underdog’s will to fight. That will to fight is, more often than not, the deciding factor in a conflict.

        If you wish to keep pushing for your gun bans and this silly idea of ‘universal’ background checks which can not be enforced without total gun registration, you will eventually push the country into crisis. With some 60,000 gun control laws already on the books how will even more help things? Every time some fool goes out and shoots somebody, they break a half dozen gun control laws. Even if you ban all guns, you will never get them all back. The three clowns in Oklahoma were ‘bored’ so they decided to go kill some one. All were ex-felons in the juvie system, none should have had a gun. Do you think they got that gun legally? Would it make you feel better if they had beat and/or dragged that college student to death or just ran him down in their car? This incident should give liberals pause as it quite clearly displays the declining morality of our society as it becomes more and more liberal.”We were bored so we decided to kill somebody.”… But most likely it will just lead to more anti-gun rhetoric.

      • John E. Conway

        Actually gun violence is down in Austalia, go figure, although yes, other violence is up. There is less death, though, which i think is a good thing. I will accept your straw man, I can better defend against sticks, knives bats, and bows than a gun, so much prefer them, thank you. A person cannot potentially kill a thousand people a minute with a bow and arrow. Ok, lets be more reasonable, how about 50? I dont think any but the most accomplish bowman could even hope to approach that kind of accuracy, precision, and stamina. Bombs? Lets be realistic, how may people are smarty enough to make them? Especially with the republicans killing educational budgets to keep people dumb and obedient. Even the ones smart enough to dont always have the skills or training. And not all the ones that do have the nerve. If you manage to find someone with that combination then it is a question of logistics, do they have a place where they can mix it and prepare it and put it all together, store it, and transport it, without someone else noticing? it isn’t like this country isn’t almost completely wired up. Sure its possible as was proven recently, but it is pretty rare. So lets stop with the ridiculous arguments about replacements that will happen if people dont have guns. yes, people will still be violent, we can’t change stupid overnight. Like I said, the nation needs to grow up a lot before this could even be conceived, but it might be possible down the line, who knows.

        “”But when you create a climate of fear, and keep people uneducated,
        prevent them from having healthcare, sex education, effective
        contraception, and create a situation where only a select few rise above
        because the resources are limited, well you end up with a society that
        cannot think for itself and believes what ever lies you tell it.” …. What country do you come from? ‘Cause all that nonsense doesn’t describe where I come from. Quite frankly, the left’s intolerance of any who
        disagree with or go against their group think does not give me much confidence that they are trying to create a society that can think for itself.”

        That is exactly the society the republicans are creating. A large uneducated poor group that is actually dependent on the government and the “job creators” who believe whatever lies are fed to them through their masters mouthpiece, Fox news.

        We won the revolutionary war because we hired mercenary, because the french helped us, because we fought guerrilla style while they didn’t. Rifled muskets were not used in warfare really until the civil war (they did see limited use in the revolutionary way, but were too slow to reload and left no room for a bayonet). The Minie ball was the revolution that made rifles a hit and started the real rifling revolution. We won because they had to focus on the french, and didn’t have time or resources to split on two fronts, and the French was the bigger and more direct threat. So they, in effect, gave up and let us win.

        Oh, so you are going to jump on the making laws wont matter because people just break them: bandwagon now. great, so lets just revoke all child rape laws while we are at it, because pedophiles are just going to keep breaking them , no matter how many laws we make. Does that make any sense to you?

        And you say this is a display of our declining morality as we become more liberal? no, this is a display of declining morality because of the disparity in income caused by trickle down economics.

      • Ronald Green

        Let’s see, two supposedly poorly educated muslim brothers in Boston manged to build several and set off two. Or have you forgotten them? And never forget Timothy McVeigh either. Building a bomb is not as difficult as you seem to think. I rather expect you would be quite disconcerted to find yourself confronted buy a man with bat or a knife demanding you give him what ever he wants. You’d just give it to him and hope he didn’t kill you for fun. That’s where you with a gun would have had an advantage, but you don’t like guns, so good luck with that. There never was much ‘death’ due to guns in Australia, just a slowly growing belief that guns are evil, liberals are the same all over and are like you really. Your irrational fear of a tool known as a gun is… well irrational.

        We hired mercenaries during the Revolution? When did we do that? The British brought in German mercenaries to help them, but ‘we’ never did. The French show up in time to block Lord Cornwallis’s retreat from Yorktown right at the very end of it and you claim they fought the war for us? I am sure Washington would be very displeased to hear it. Most of the militia of the day used their personal rifled muskets, they were referred to as Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifles. The Continental Regulars used mostly what ever they could get, from weapons captured from the British to weapons bought from France. You can argue that the French entering the war, put the English on notice that the war was spreading. They were spread too thin to continue to fight us and have to fight in Europe as well, because we weren’t going to quit and play nice. They had to choose between two conflicts and in the end, they choose to let us go. Even so, it means we won.

        Money has nothing to do with morality, I can see plainly that there is no point in continuing with this discussion. To you, the Republican party is the great bug-a-boo and there is now reason in your opinion. The country has not gotten more conservative / Republican in the last 60 years. It has gotten more liberal / Democrat. But yet you say it’s those evil Republicans that are at fault. Our declining morality can be laid at the feet of liberalism and it’s “everything is relative” “progressive” philosophy and no where else. And throw in your own straw man argument about pedophiles? Equating inalienable rights to pure perverse criminal activity, sadly is typical of the left. The roll of those dependent on the Government has nearly doubled in the last 5 years under a Liberal / Democrat administration, and yes, I know you will blame that on Boooshh too, it’s all ya got. But it was a liberal Democrat that established it in the first place. His name? Lyndon Baines Johnson. We now have a class of ‘entitled’ people dependent on government hand outs and we have you liberals to thank for it. So when you create your socialist utopia where everyone is paid the same so there is no ‘income disparity’, you will have finally destroyed what was once, the greatest nation on the planet and that’s really why you want to ban guns; so that you can bring that about all the more quickly. But that total equality that you think can be achieved is a fantasy that leads to dictatorial regimes like the Bolsheviks that gave us communist Russia. Where only the political elite are rich and everyone else gets to stand in line for bread.

        Honestly, I have never gotten a job from a poor man, only rich ones. That trickle down thing really is true. He pays me for working for him, from the money he gets for selling or building what ever it is that his company builds or sells. Too bad what you liberals want to give us is trickle up poverty where we can only get whatever the government says we can have.

        But do go on hating the system that made this country the greatest country on the planet. Keep hating it all. I hope you are always frustrated in your ill advised attempts at remaking us into a “socialist paradise” and know that I will always oppose your attempts at that.

      • Picky Wassah

        when people like you don’t have a clue of what is like to be an American. We only heard ignorant garbage like yours…
        thanks to throw in our face how stupid you are…no more proof need it!

      • Ohlie

        Uh, yeah, about that. I don’t know about cops, because I’m not one, but I do know the military, and we swore an oath to defend our country, not our government. If and when an uprising happens, the government is going to have major problem when they realize the majority of the military will fight against them. “Unlawful orders,” you know that kind of thing? Yeah, we won’t obey orders that tell us to attack the people we swore to protect.

      • Ohlie

        And yeah, I do have guns. Several of them. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, b******.

      • The Truth

        Don’t forget your lube.

      • John Galt

        Who’s “they”.. how many of “they” have you talked too know it all?

      • jesse

        we wouldnt need that anyway do you know math?

      • Michael Heating

        if they really believe in the oath they took they will side with the people if not a lot of dead cops and military along with the rest

      • Michael Heating

        theres a lot of cops and ex military that have the training + experience and more knowledge than 18 yr old dhs and new military plus any un or other people that the govt hires plus 1 person defending there home,family and freedom and values is like a wolverine ever see red dawn

      • bobrien2

        It’s like you’ve never met anyone in the military. You realize that they’re largely libertarian and conservative right? And that 25% of recruitment is from texas alone.

      • Flyingguns

        You know nothing idiot. I know plenty of ppl in the Armed Forces who are Oath Keepers. Im sure you know of the infamous letter by 1100 Green Berets who pledge to uphold the US Constitution/Bill of Rights as it was written by our country’s founding fathers.

      • Bill Adams

        As a thirteen year Navy Veteran, I’d like to respond.

        Patriotism, and love of freedom and The Constitution runs through many military peoples vein’s. These are their basic beliefs.

        If military people see that freedom is being lost, they will stand with the freedom fighters.

        MANY military people, MANY LEOs, Many Vets, have already stated that they will stand with the people. They have pledged not to obey orders to confiscate guns or other non-consitutional orders.. We call ourselves Three Percenters,

        Oath Keeper is another huge nationwide organization with similar beliefs.

        Don’t laugh at that which you know nothing about.

      • Jim Hoover

        No we believe in the human thought that given an unlawful order they will refuse to do the order. Of course there will be some that will follow orders Remember the Schutzstaffel who’s defense at the Nuremberg trials was I was just following orders? Didn’t work then do you think it will now?

      • Cruz

        I am a veteran, and your damn right most of the Army will not shoot on civilians. So yes, I really DO believe that because I WAS one. What did YOU ever do for this country besides bitch behind a computer screen?

      • Alaskapopo

        Actually most cops like myself are pro gun and we will not enforce any gun confiscation laws or any other unconstitutional laws.

      • Soldier2019

        You think we wont? -Army Soldier

    • ryan

      You liverals, yes I meant to spell it that way, are a joke. I have several firearms, and I shoot regularly. I am from Texas, it is a way of life down here. I am far from “SICK IN THE HEAD” and Have a better education than the majority of the population. I have 2 jobs in the medical industry and OWN my house. I am only 32 years old and am very much in control of my actions. Now, for you to discount someone for their RIGHT to own a firearm, and think that they are all just crazy, then you yourself, are just as much as a bigot as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. People like you will never understand the fundamental reasoning behind owning a firearm, much less ever understand the RESPONSIBILITY of owning one. I definitely support my local police, however, I also understand that when seconds count, help is minutes away. I choose Life, I choose the RIGHT to defend my self and will not allow myself or my family be attacked by the many evil people in this world. If you do not understand that their are always evil people that are hell bent on doing people harm and that YOU and YOU ONLY are responsible for YOUR and YOUR FAMILIES SAFETY. The police are not hear to protect you, they are hear to sort out the mess afterwards and TRY to catch the criminal, but by that time, you are already a victim. I choose to not be a victim, I choose to protect my family and myself. Just because you do not agree with this, does not mean that I must follow your footsteps to being a victim.

      • Guest1

        “The police are not *HERE to protect you, they are *HERE to sort out the mess…”

        Sorry, from one “well educated” person to another that was hurting my eyes to see 😛

    • Molon Labe

      NO cop I know will EVER come to “take your guns.” 95 percent of police and sheriff’s associations have already declared that they will not enforce any unconstitutional gun laws, my county included. You want to know how well a small, well-armed force would do against the best armed force in the world? All you need do is refer to the little colonial skirmish known as The American Revolution. A ragtag band of rebels thoroughly handed the largest, best armed, most well-trained army in the entire world its ass on a plate. How, you may ask? Guerrilla tactics. Same as will be resorted to here, if needs be.

      • Gandalf

        Military technology during the American Revolution was not nearly as advanced as it is today, and the gap between the British army’s weaponry and the revolutionary’s weaponry was much smaller. Also, this occurred at a time when moving troops from Britain to the Americas took quite some time, which you’ll notice is no longer a problem.

        I really wish people would stop trying to use the American Revolution as an example that a small group of rebels can thwart the United States military on its own soil. Times change, technology changes, and tactics change. What was relevant over 200 years ago is no longer relevant, and anyone who fools themselves to believe otherwise is in for nothing but disappointment.

      • Dan

        Lets compare this analogy and see how silly it is:

        British had muskets, horses, cannons, nice red uniflorms
        Americans had muskets, horses, cannons, raggy blue uniforms

        Patriots have: Shotguns, Deer rifles, small number of light auto/semi auto weapons, cell phones, Internet

        US Military: Jets, Helicopters, Tanks, Armor, communications, satellites.

        It would be over as soon as they turned off Cell, Internet Service, Cable TV and the ATMs.

        Americans are not going to give up their jobs, homes, savings or lives for Alex Jones and his ilk. Their wives wont let them……………

    • Joel Stoner

      The United States was founded by traitors, and they were afraid that the new government that they created may become as tyrannical as the one they had just broke away from. If you actually payed attention during history class you might know this. Originally standing armies were unconstitutional, that is why they had the main army as the Militia, which consisted of every able bodied male between 18 and 45.

      On the police thing and army thing, you do realize that there are many more armed civilians than there are police and military combined? If it does come to war, how many of them do you think will actually fire on their fellow citizen?

      You call us nuts, but you never take credit for your failed policies, Detroit is bankrupt because of liberal control since 1961.

      • Jim

        Who needs a history lesson? The military has already fired on civilians, their fellow citizens: Remember the anti-war demonstrators at Kent State? Murdered by the military…

        Enough said.

      • Joel Stoner

        The main thing to keep in mind is that together, firearms owners outnumber all government agents, including the armed forces. We are the biggest army in the world. One incident does not a rule make.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        True, but we have one big giant incident known as “The Civil War” as well.

      • Joel Stoner

        The real name of that war is “The War of Northern Aggression”, Civil wars are when citizens of the same country fight each other for control. The war of Northern Aggression was between to separate Countries. United States of America, and Confederate States of America.

        You really think that if it actually came to a Civil War, that the US Military would stand a chance? They would be outnumbered quickly, another country would eventually pick the Rebels side, just like before. Don’t assume that just because we mere citizens have never been to basic, or other training that we couldn’t Red Dawn.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        War of Northern Aggression? You mean the one where the traitors fired the first shot?

        There was only one country: The United States of America. Several of the states were in rebellion, but we settled that with the treaty that was signed.

        And yes, I do think the US Military would quickly take out any attempt at sedition, just like last time.

      • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

        Joel Stoner Red Dawn was a fuckin movie. You truly are an idiot.

      • Bailey Summers

        LOLOLOL! Wow you are a southern delusionist. Here’s a hint Bubba, pull out of your cousin it’ll improve the breed.

      • Pithy Eponym Here

        Attack on Ft. Sumpter precipated the Civil War. This War of N Aggression is rebranding hogwash. Red Dawn? God what a hopped up Walter Mitty you are! Keep smokin’, just hope you’re in that socialist paradise of Seattle or maybe Denver so you don’t get busted and thrown in jail for life!

      • greece

        And the Whiskey Rebellion, which was put down pretty quickly by the new government under its new Constitution.

      • JamieHaman

        Thank you greece for sharing the name of the Whiskey Rebellion, which I had never heard of. Very interesting stuff.

      • nuff said

        Your invalid assumption is that all the “firearms owners” will be on one side and the “government” on the other. As a gun owner myself, I would defend the government against insurrection, as would thousands of other gun owners. What you assume will be a revolution, will in fact, be a civil war.

      • TJJ300

        If there is a Civil War there will be two sides: For Freedom and Against Freedom. You, of course, are free to fight against Freedom.

      • Yolanda Acosta

        You are assuming that everyone with a gun will be on “your side” if this happens. I own guns and would not partake in any revolt against the gov. unless there were extreme circumstances. I have not seen these nor do I understand why there are ppl like you wanting a revolution!

      • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

        You honestly think your “biggest army in the world” is a cohesive fighting force all with the same political views? You’re a fuckin idiot. You and your kind will be slaughtered and rightfully so if you want to over throw the government. There has been no violation of the constitution that calls for violent overthrow. Just because you feel that YOUR views, values, and opinions are not being represented by the government does not mean the constitution is not being upheld. I took an oath to protect and uphold the constitution, but unlike you I have a better understanding of what it actually means and have no problem with shooting your ass for trying to overthrow the government of the United States.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        I think I luvvvvvvvvvv that reply!!!!

      • TJJ300

        That was the Ohio National Guard. And that memory should be enough to prevent that from happening again.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        “should be enough to prevent……..”
        =========================================
        I like that!! ” should be”,,,,,, I like that!!!

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        When I was a soldier, I was willing to fire on any enemy of our nation, foreign or domestic. As was every person in my unit.

        And you do realize 30 yokels armed with AR15’s stand no chance against a single strike fighter running a CAS mission, right?

      • Joel Stoner

        You think they would not take weapons from fallen enemies? Those yokels would quickly take over tanks, RPGs, Missiles, etc. Ever wonder where the power for most major Cities comes from? Rural areas, that have lots of redneck gun owners. your argument is invalid.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        I don’t think the yokels would know how to operate a tank, or an RPG. Or, missiles for that matter.

        Actually, the power for most major cities comes from the grid, which has power generation stations in MANY locations, not just rural areas. Because, if it were concentrated in rural areas, transmission losses would be too great.

        Take the Northeast: Most of the power comes from the Niagara Hydro Plant, and a couple of coal fired plants along River Road (Not very rural, and very urban). Only 3 coal fired plants in the rural areas.

      • TJJ300

        Skeptic, in this situation you would be violating your oath to uphold the Constitution. That would make you a enemy of our nation. Anybody who willing violates the Constitution is an enemy of the United States of America. And if that means cops, well, there are a lot of bad cops.

        And RPG’s are not hard to operate. If Ahmed can figure it out, I would have no problem. Same with all the variations on the M2. Give me enough ammo, a couple of barrels, and a helper and I’m good to go.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        What part of my oath would I be violating? Putting down insurrection is one of the main reasons for a military.

      • TJJ300

        Your oath is to uphold the Constitution. You didn’t swear an oath to the President. If the people decide to overthrow the current government so they can reinstate the Constitution (which is in the Declaration of Independence. “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. “), and you fight against them, you violate your oath.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Right, to uphold the constitution. Which means to put down insurrection. It right there, in black and white in Article I, Sec 8:

        “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”

        The Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the laws of the land. And, we settled the question in regards to insurrection in 1865. Your option for “overthrowing the government” is every couple of years, you get to vote for new representation.

      • TJJ300

        It is also right there in the constitution that the President has to uphold the Constitution. “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

        When the government no longer preserves, protects or defends the Constitution it has to be removed, by any means possible.

        It is not insurrection to defend the Constitution when it is being violated by those in power.

        You better think this over, it sounds like it you don’t understand that you are fighting to defend an ideal. You sound like you are fighting to defend a system, and it doesn’t matter how corrupt it has become. You bucking for a FEMA camp Kommandantcy?

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        And, what part of his oath has he violated?

        And, yes. I am defending a system that supports the ideals lain our in our founding documents.

        One of those ideas is this: You are not allowed start an armed insurrection. You are, however, allowed to change your government via elections.

      • Artos

        im going to have to side with paranormal skeptic the military personnel might not like it but they would put down any insurrection in the US

      • redc1c4

        and i’m fairly certain that a large number of troops would not be interested in doing so.

        likely violently uninterested.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        You are fairly incorrect. Soldiers enlist for one major reason: They love our nation. They love it so much, they will fight to keep it.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        then they go to prison. soldiers do not want to loser benefits

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        100% correct. they take orders; and if not- they go to prison and lose pay and benefits. end of story
        ========================================
        shall we start with ted nugent and cliven bundy???

      • disqus_BITKhidsuI

        Ever heard of George Soros? Look him up and see if elections will do any good anymore….

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        All Soros or the Koch brothers can do is buy ads. People cast votes.

      • disqus_BITKhidsuI

        I vote in every election, but voting isn’t changing many of the issues that effect large banking cartels and wall street (as well as several other issues). Soros and the Koch brothers don’t just buy ads lol. They buy elections. How many times have we seen evidence that our voting system is manipulated time and time again. It’s amazing we just keep repeating the same garbage over and over again. “left vs right,” nothing changes. We’re being duped plain and simple.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        I’m not sure you understand how voting works.

        Voting doesn’t mean whatever YOU dictate goes. Voting means whatever the majority decides is what happens.

        I dunno about Soros or the Koch brothers “buying elections”. I’m not sure how one would buy an election, other than buying ads and contributing to campaigns.

        Now, buying representatives: Sure. That’s an issue. However, all it takes to fix that is for the majority to VOTE for new representation.

        And, none of that changes the substantive question being examined here: The second amendment does NOT give you the right to wage war on the US.

      • disqus_BITKhidsuI

        Yes I understand how voting works via a majority. Here’s the problem, when-ever we elect someone based on their promises and merit, they stab us in the back i.e. Obama, especially after his 2nd term started. THIS is why I say voting doesn’t work. When serious manipulation needs done, it gets done i.e. Florida elections in 2000, for Bush. Without their NWO mongers at least in office, their plans would seriously be halted. They use these stunts to get their puppets in then. Now that the NSA is blackmailing our congress and presidential candidates, (since Patriot ACT and Bush/Cheney admin was done raping and lying to the American public). Voting helps even less…Lawyers and judges work tirelessly to promote big lobbies, and can give a shit about how we vote. Sorry I wasn’t clear on this earlier. This is what more and more people are beginning to understand, and why many are frustrated and talking about guns and stuff. Start looking into what Soros has done to other countries, then tell me voting is the only option. I know you spent 22 years or something in the military…so this apparently=u know everything lol. But I sounded a lot like you before I woke up…

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        I didn’t spend 22 years in the military. That was some yokel who claimed that (But also made a number of specious claims in regards to military operations).

        Now, onto your claims here. I can only suggest this to you, if you think our government is broken: Take a class or two on goverment. 100 level classes should be fine. Then, get involved in your government. When was the last time you called your reps? Voiced your concerns? When was the last time you attended any civic meeting or town hall?

      • disqus_BITKhidsuI

        Sorry, I’ve read a lot of these posts they are beginning to blur together ;). Getting involved in government has been an interest of mine, but then do I get blackmailed too? Many people get into gov’t thinking they can change things, only to find out that if they want to get anywhere, they have to “play ball.” to answer your questions at the end of you post; today, today (TPP), and last Tuesday (smart meters ugh). Thx for the interesting chats though!

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        I’ve never been blackmailed, and I’ve been able to make small, local changes by being involved.

        Don’t knock it, until you try it 🙂

      • disqus_BITKhidsuI

        Wasn’t knocking activism lol! Yeah I am up against a huge energy lobby, not a shred of luck yet but many more each day are waking up in my hometown. U are indeed right but there isn’t much time for the big picture, that is our republic unfortunately…

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Remember: All politics are local.

        In the grand scheme of things, federal level actions don’t really affect you in the day-to-day. Local actions do 🙂

      • Lensoren

        THIS! I’ve been telling people this for AGEs but they don’t listen. Many of the policies that affect us are on the local level; with state government, yet people blame local issues on federal, and wonder why nothing gets done.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        notice how he excluded the white trash elitist KOCH brothers???

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        keep suckling the tete of the Koch brothers

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        funny how U white trash micropenile inbred regressives didn’t say a WORD when GW bush and his merry men screwed us over

      • regressive white trash reli

        ^^^idiot regressive showing total ignorance^^^

      • Don Stachowiak

        “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
        and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
        enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
        allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
        President of the United States and the orders of the officers
        appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform
        Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code;
        Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789,
        with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

      • TJJ300

        What’s number one on that list? If the President orders you to do something unconstitutional, and you do it, you broke your oath. Pretty simple, actually.

      • redc1c4

        really?

        in which country?

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        This country.

      • Mark

        So u really don’t think our government and military are outa line well I know many military and ex military that are very sure if the day comes it will b the side of the plp they will fight for. Our gov is out of control and votes no longer matter there are plenty of solders that will not comply u are the traitor if u would shoot an American for fighting for there freedom and a useless mass on our planet

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Let’s say, for sake of argument, that our government IS out of line.

        We got the government we voted for. And, it’s very simple to change it: Vote for new people.

        That’s your right to overthrow the government: Via elections. Not insurrection.

        I suppose the US Military have had lots of traitors, ever since George Washington marched on the Whiskey Rebellion. Lots of soldiers willing to shoot rebels.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        soldiers follow orders,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        go try to shoot oen and see what happens to your white trash regressive ass

      • TJ is stupid

        You are criminally stupid: too damn stupid to know how damn stupid you are. STFU.

      • TJJ300

        It’s hard to argue for freedom and liberty to people who don’t see the value of either.

      • TJJ300

        Nice display of brains you have there. Sure told me off.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        hey idiot– attacking our military is gonna get U killed
        ========================================
        please try,,,O white trash regressives; please try

      • redc1c4

        i can drive any AFV in inventory, operate an RPG and drop a power line anywhere.

        I can also cut the water & natural gas supplies, cut rail links and interdict trucking…

        now how are you going to support the cities? also, every trooper you have to use to keep order in the cities and guard their LOC’s is one less out looking for the OPFOR.

        wanna try again?

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Any AFV in inventory, huh? Wow, you are like a super soldier or something. Most tankers I know don’t know how to operate every AFV in the inventory. A Bradley driver would likely be lost in driving an M1A1 Abrams; and a BFV crew member wouldn’t know squat about loading in a main gun round in an Abrams either.

        You can cut gas lines? lololololololololol THAT right there is why I don’t worry about yokels with some pea shooters. They’ll kill themselves off, and no need for military intervention.

        How to support the cities? The same way the cities were supported in the Civil War, or the Whiskey Rebellion. The same way cities are supported in EVERY conflict. This isn’t rocket surgery, basic war fighting. Remember, insurrectionists are typically far outnumbered by those who don’t want to over-throw the government. You think all of those people who actually love our country will stand by and do nothing?

        lololololololol. Go cut some gas lines, and help clean the gene pool bro.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        go try to shoot a soldier on duty and lemme know how that works 4 ya

      • ohnhai

        operation instructions are easy to find

        for example the AT4 shoulder mounted rocket

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmxzZzR1_lE

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        So, you’re making a huge assumption: That these people know how to read, or actually use the internet…

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        u think we would lose a fight to shotgun wielding white trash regressive inbred scum??? really???

      • redc1c4

        really?

        which military were you a “soldier” in, for one thing?

        also. how is your strike fighter even going to get in the air if there is no jet fuel getting to the base? how are you going to target those 30 “yokels”, what munition are you going to use, and what about collateral damage to surrounding area?

        until you can sound like someone who actually understands the issues involved, it might be better for your image to read moar & pontificate less.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Active Army, Combined Arms Cavalry. How about you?

        And, how would all of that stuff get to the troops? Same way it does in any war zone without pre-existing infra.

        Collateral damage? Well, that’s what is known as “Fortunes of War” and all that. We had lots of collateral damage during the civil war.

      • Eric Harmon

        Actually, you sound like some progressive armchair warrior. You don’t know history, or the law. Some in the military would fire on American citizens, but the vast majority would not. As for operating vehicles and equipment, if you ever actually wore the uniform you would know how easy it is operate almost anything in the US Army inventory short of Aircraft and Patriot missles. Data plates? TM’s? Any of that ring a bell? Why not just run back with your traitorous little liberal buddies and have another cup of tea?

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Well, this “arm chair warrior” actually served in combat, in the US Cavalry. Division Cavalry to boot.

        Yep, -10’s are in every vehicle… Always. And they are so in depth, there’s zero reason to send any soldier to AIT (Or tech school, depending on branch). Data plates are chock full of operations instructions, like serial numbers and model numbers. That totes can tell you how to load a round in a main gun. smh… Bro, did you even serve?

        If you seriously think soldiers (generally) wont actually put down an insurrection, you need to history. They did it at least 4 distinct times in US history alone.

        And, if you think the law prevents soldiers being used to put down an insurrection, I will suggest you read the US Constitution.

      • Eric Harmon

        Now into my 22nd year of service, I think I know the US Army a bit better than you seem to think you do. All I can tell you is that you seem like nothing more than another candy-a** civilian liberal that really has no clue about life. If you truly believe that Soldiers will fire en masse on the American public, you need to really re-think life. Yes, some will. The ones that cannot think for themselves. They would use the Nurenburg excuse to avoid accountability. The rest? Consider that a large portion of our military rests with the National Guard. You think they are going to shoot their neighbors because someone in Washington DC tells them to? How many in the Active Component would desert rather than fire on civilians?

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        22 years in the military, and you think data plates tell you how to operate equipment, and there’s a -10 in every vehicle?

        22 years in the military, and you don’t know how to move munitions and supplies in areas without infra?

        22 years in the military, and you don’t know that putting down insurrections are a major reason for the army?

        Wow… You are a piss poor example of leadership in the military.

      • Eric Harmon

        So you are just an armchair warrior. I am guessing you are about 15 years old with ultra liberal parents.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        lolol…. Bro, see above.

      • Just some guy

        Kent State?

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, annoying a regressive republican lemming with historical FACTS

      • Truelitistnot

        Enemies foreign and domestic need not be the people. The domestic enemy could easily, and more likely be government itself. ALL ENEMIES includes government.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        It could also be people who think the second amendment gives them the right to overthrow their government.

      • Kristy Premer

        UM…It does…that is why it was put there! Are you really that ignorant?

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        It was put there to preclude the need for a standing army. If the second amendment granted the right to overthrow the government, Washington would never have marshaled the militias to march on the Whiskey Rebellion.

        In fact, the second amendment was there to AID in putting down insurrection.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        take some guns and TRY 2 overthrow our GOVT—–
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lemme know how that works for U and cliven bundy and ted nugent

      • rob

        governments are only as strong as those who support them.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        based upon the vote tallies in the past 2 presidential elections,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        I would say that our military will have NO problem with slightly armed white trash regressives who “think” they can overturn/overthrow this governmant

      • SilverWolf

        Like the military tanks that was called in by the Chinese Goverment to quell Tienanmen Square and stopped their tanks and even got and mixed with the protestors and refused to “fire against the people” so the government had to call in its own version of the SS and use them to kill and disperse the crowd.

        My but we have a lot of ignorant left wing savages dont we.

      • Don Stachowiak

        I took an oath over 40 years ago.
        “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
        and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
        enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
        allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
        President of the United States and the orders of the officers
        appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform
        Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code;
        Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789,
        with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

        That oath is still in effect.

      • ohnhai

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary
        to the security of a free State,…”

        The language is UNAMBIGUOUS! The 2nd is there to guarantee an armed force to be available for the defense of the State (and by inference the Union) NOT for the overthrow of government* by yokels who will hold guns to federal heads demanding federal land with one hand while taking federal money with the other…

        The second half “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”, while unambiguously granting the right of US citizens to own and carry guns, clearly does so as a secondary clause to the first half. In other words your right to own and carry a gun is clearly intended to be in service and in defense of the state not your own personal fucking political agenda.

        All too frequently people will conveniently forget the first half of the 2nd amendment and its implications.

        The instant you raise these guns against State or Federal authority you become the problem. You become a detriment to the security of the State and also puts you on the wrong side of section three of article three of the constitution.

        Had the Dickwipes in Oregon not brought guns, not threatened armed conflict with State and Federal forces, this would be a different matter. But, as it is,
        they are working against the state’s security putting them at odds with the second amendment, and in promising/inciting armed revolt against Federal interest they are verging if not actually rushing headlong into treasonous actions.

        *State or Federal

      • Anatole France

        Can you tell me how 3% of Americans with 265 million guns in their hands represents a “well regulated militia”. There’s nothing regulated about it.

        Give me a break! Look at the Bundy’s. They bring chaos, lethal weapons to the hands of anarchists who have no respect for the institutions of our society, unconstrained by the checks and balances specified by our founding documents.

        We don’t get safety and peace by putting assault weapons in the hands of zealots who have never read or understood those documents. The psychotic permissiveness of the NRA makes us less safe and puts the lives of our children and our law enforcement officers at risk.

      • ohnhai

        You make my point for me. They are neither a militia or well regulated.

        The second amendment was penned in a time when the states were few and huddled up against the east coast pushing ever out into the west.

        The Native Tribes were a problem, as was bandit activity and not forgetting LARGE wildlife. The population was about 3 million (the same size as the number of Army and police today) and in those times it made sense for individual households to keep a long arm.

        As this was the time in between the revolutionary forces being disbanded and what would become the modern US Army being founded, it was essential for the defence of fledgling states that militias could be assembled rapidly, without the need for arming or much training. Threats needed to be responded to quickly.

        If the state needed to pull a militia together then they wouldn’t need to supply or train the militia members as they would bring their own gun and skill. and this is why the second gives the right to own firearms to the citizens. Not for their own protection. Not so they can rise up and overthrow the government (local or federal) or air their personal grievances, but so they are ready to be dragooned into a local state militia that at the very least is armed and can use those arms.

        It is no longer essential for individual states to be able to raise a militia. There are ample standing forces in the National guard, the Army, Police and Feds to do the job the militias once did, and therefore the second amendment is obsolete. and that includes the second half of it.

        But the NRA and those in their camp cling to it as a desperate lifeline to allow them to keep their guns with minimal regulation and oversight, flying in the face of common sense that you should only be allowed a gun if you can prove an actual need for one. That also means being able to justify the need for the specific type of gun you want. “you want an M16 with armour piercing rounds for ‘personal defence’?? jog on mate!!”. And also to fight sensible stipulations like being refused a gun licence if you have a felony conviction, or fail to complete suitable training, or fail to demonstrate an on-going ability to store and operate them securely and safely.

        Its is way beyond time that the USA repeals the second as the reason for it being there is long past obsolete.

      • bfg

        You think a well regulated militia was intended as a way to overthrow the government?

      • Thank you, I have said this so many times!

      • Patriot

        You can not be even anywhere near serious? !!!!!

        “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” –Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

      • Pithy Eponym Here

        Re-read the Constitution bucko, Article 1, Sect 8 and Article 2 Sec 2 to be exact. Congressional powers to raise funds for armies and navies etc. Also said ARMIES and NAVIES and militias fall under command of the CIC in active service. It was written in 1808. If you actually paid attention in history class and stopped watching Roger Ailes Propaganda channel you might learn something. Go back to FOX ya 3-percenter.

      • Pithy Eponym Here

        This fantasy that troops won’t fire on our own citizens? Lol, look at history again in riot and looting situations, police brutality in NYC and Oakland during Occupy protests. Please. If some Duck Dynasty d-bag is pointing his Bushmaster at me and Im deployed in a hot zone, I’m not gonna lay down arms first. Keep dreaming, or keep smoking dat weetus, Stoner Joel.

      • Eric Harmon

        Fire on civilians and you will be held accountable.

      • Pithy Eponym Here

        Not saying that I wouldn’t, but don’t conflate that those citizens are unarmed as in say, Egypt or Iran.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        fire upon us troops and U will not be held accountable–
        trust me,,,,,,,,,,,,
        U will be dead

      • Yolanda Acosta

        No Detroit’s bankruptcy is not simple as that, it has more to it. Can’t list all the reasons don’t have time to get into it, but just know that there are many reasons, that are beyond your simplistic remark!

      • Rick Catdaddy Blankenship

        I believe your remark was even more simplistic.

      • Bailey Summers

        The GOP state officials and zoning and rezoning and job shipping and people moving there’s a lot of stuff that went down in Detroit and some of it very much on purpose to mess with a traditionally Left wing Union and minority driven voting block.

      • SomeoneWithBrains

        What a stupid reply. How did you gain all of this data about who will fire against whom? If it came down to it I would support our country, I did it once in the military and will again if needed, the majority don’t think the same way as you. They seem to think that the ELECTED official, president is doing something right. So in your bubble you think that everyone is going to wake up someday and have a warped way of looking at the country just like you and the rest of the Republicans. As for Detroit, you honestly think it was the failed policies that brought Detroit to it’s current state? Not the 750,00 automotive related jobs that were moved overseas or to Canada/Mexico? When A city gets as large as Detroit and then loses half of it’s population in under ten years you really think policies would fix it? Dig your head out of Rush Limbaugh’s ass and think for yourself.
        If I remember correctly the country was headed for the same fate in 2008 until they got some brains in Washington and slowed the run away train down. Bush just about sent this country into another great depression!

      • Bailey Summers

        They didn’t get those jobs up here in Canada our automotive’s dead too. All overseas in both countries.

      • Eric Harmon

        And why did those jobs go to those countries? Better business climate. Whose policies penalize business? That would be those that call themselves progressives, democrat and republican. You argument is void.

      • Pithy Eponym Here

        If by “better business climate” you mean paying poverty wages/sweat shop wages to workers in factory cities so as to keep corporations flush with cash that they then can hide as offshore assets and non-taxable (Nike, Apple, Walmart et al), then yeah.

      • Eric Harmon

        We call that business. Business exists to make a profit, not support your lazy behind.

      • Pithy Eponym Here

        Not a believer in ethical capitalism I take it, Fwiw that’s not a sustainable business model. Enjoy your short term profits in your plantation style business. Pretty soon your skill set will be outsourced to a country engaged in a race to the bottom, or China whichever comes first. Lao Sam!

      • TJJ300

        The only brains that came into Washington in 2008 were in Conservative heads.

      • giankeys loves shemale porn

        one city,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        shall we look at the TERRRRRIFIC republican federal policies of past 25 yrs???
        lets start with CALIFORNIA. BROKE under repubs; now showing a SURPLUS under jerry brown
        ===========================================
        and,,,,,,,,,, those silly dead and maimed USA soldiers in that IRAQ war!

    • kman68

      the ones making the real threats are the tyrants of the left. to threaten law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong, desecrating the Constitution of the United States of America are the real acts of treason. your pathetic attempt to show your self as a supporter of our nation’s LEO’s is feeble at best. Some may not see it as a slight, but COP is largely used by those who attack and vilify the LEO’s. To say that someone who KNOWS that it is their right to defend themselves are advocating the killing of officers is intellectually vacant and suggesting a moral equivalency is absurd.

    • The Constitution

      If a cop is willing to break the constitution and disarm us, witch they would lose buy a long shot since it only takes 3 percent of the population to take over the entire federal government and some estimate around 42 percent own guns (those are the registered ones btw), then i think that ignorant cop should be expecting people to be shooting at him and needs to ask is it worth his and our lives to take a gun away from an innocent person? Have fun misinforming people.

    • yeaguns

      I doubt Mr.Nugent is listening to you. He rarely listens to pussies.

    • Jim Hoover

      If a police officer is going to break into my house without a warrant guess what he is going to be shot. No I don’t support the local police, as long as there is a blue line of silence as long as “good” police stand by and let the bad police have their way with civilians they are not good in my view. HERE A CONCEPT FOR YOU THE POLICE ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW until I see bad police serving equal prison time for their crimes they will be fair game for me. When will you defend your family? When Johnny Law is raping your wife or daughter. Oh they don’t do…. oh sorry there have been documented crimes of the police doing that. Or, are you going to defend your family when DHS orders you to the FEMA Camps. Or, when they offer to give your family a free shower at the camp?

    • Brandon Biagiano

      My police force is on the news all the time for being corrupt so no I don’t support them you fuckin retard.you’re a dumbass dude.open your eyes you sleeping idiot. Police are there as the governments way of keeping citizens in check.you know how many innocent people go to jail and prison now???? Half.some areas more. All because their agenda is to make money.why do you think you have to switch to a new healthcare?? Because they make money off you.you’re a dumb fuck who really needs to just stfu and stay off these sights before you’re hacked

    • Joseph Guida

      If the government were to over reach its legal boundaries afforded by the constitution in such a way that would qualify for tyranny, then no, those who overthrow that government would not be traitors.

  • Glenn Plas

    Well written! It’s only logic Mr Spock would say.

  • Reality Check

    All of our founding fathers were traitors.
    Our current government is nothing like what they had in mind… I don’t think anybody has the power to overthrow the government today – at least with guns – but Jefferson wanted to water the tree of liberty with blood every 20 years.
    Our founding fathers really were batshit nuts, and they really did promote rebellion.

    • jefe68

      In the eyes of George the III, yes they were traitors.
      As the founders of the our nation that’s a bit of a stretch.

    • noen

      We overthrow the government every two years you ignorant clown. That’s what elections *are*. The people coming together to elect their representatives. If you don’t like that system you should get the fuck out and go somewhere more to your liking.

    • Tim Jensen

      From a corrupt overreaching government, sounds a bit to familiar, huh,

  • Fracker

    Neither Tea Partiers nor “gun nuts” believe the 2d Amendment is designed to make the government fearful of its citizens. Most Tea Partiers and “gun nuts” want to be able to protect themselves against criminals or unlawful actions within that first 1 – 30 minutes before the aforementioned “cops” show up at the door. Granted, there are some Timothy McVeigh wanna be’s in every corner, but most registered gun owners are law-abiding citizens who believe in ALL the articles of the Constitution and aren’t cherry-picking, as is the author. This article is based on a false premis, and any follow-on arguments from the first sentence are irrelevant to the 2d Amendment or how people “think”. I wish I were that smart – to know what law-abiding citizens are thinking.

    • GW

      Sorry, but that is exactly what I’ve been told, by more than one person. The false premise is yours.

      • Fracker

        Thanks for your feedback. As a Tea Party supporter and card carrying “gun nut”, I can’t speak for all, but for the majority, my comment stands – from my experience of 23 years of active duty and 11 years in the Army National guard. One must factor in the context and relevance of someone advocating having weapons to protect themselves from the government. Again, it is how someone frames the question. Yes, IF the government is doing something unlawful and threatening someone’s Constitutional rights, that person would want to be able to defend him/herself. However, we both know that is quite a stretch…much like the bumper sticker about prying someone’s cold dead fingers from his gun. The above article smacks of this bumper sticker mentality…take one “position” out of context and build a series around it.

    • Guest

      Jim Porter, NRA President, specifically spoke about being ready to oppose tyranny in a recent speech.

      • Fracker

        You made my point – context and relevance.

  • HELLO!!!

    Guns don’t give anyone rights to do anything! But don’t tell me the framers of the Constitution, didn’t at least in part! Have Added the right to bear arms to take our government back from possible tyrannical leaders in the future!!!

    • Raylusk

      Well I will tell you exactly that. Our founding fathers created militias to be a stand in for having a standing army. They feared a standing army because in Europe it was the standing Army that was used to overthrow the government. So because of this fear of a standing Army, the founding fathers created a citizen militia to defend our new country and its government from foreign invaders and from those potential traitors inside the country that would want to overthrow the duly elected government.

    • chrisslowik

      actually the 2nd amendment was more about providing security FOR the government at the time, not FROM it. learn some history, it would do you good.

      • I think you forgot the part about defending it from all enemy’s both foreign and domestic. Our government is domestic.

    • The Dude

      Your dead wrong bro.That’s right-wing, NRA, III% propaganda. It’s damn good propaganda at that: It sounds good to think that our founders were so far-sighted to anticipate the happenstance of a tyrannical usurper needing an ass-stompin’ from the average citizen, but it was due to their inability to form a viable standing army (and the slave patrols, in the south). It is ludicrous to think that any government would allow citizens to be armed specifically so that future insurgencies could be formed against the government.

      • You’re the one that’s wrong. They didn’t need to be far sighted since it was the reason they fought the revolution.
        JAMES MADISON

        “Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms.”

        “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln

        “… God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.

        If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

        The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

        Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

  • Adam Charles

    Our
    constitution was written for a government to FOLLOW IT, so that means
    that any actions by government, or people in government who DON’T follow
    the constitution are charged and guilty of treason.

    If these guilty parties are not CHARGED or haven’t been
    detained for TREASON or imprisoned for such acts, then they are
    criminals on the run that need to be apprehended by THE LAW (our
    constitution) Which gives the citizens an authority to uphold that law
    that was broken against our CONSTITUTION (Enter the militia).

    So,
    if the government is breaking the constitution and aren’t being charged
    with treason, as the ones causing the treason are in the positions to
    NOT charge people with treason… what does that equal?

    That
    is right, a new government that will uphold those laws by means of
    civil unrest and uprising. through any means neccassary and met with
    reasonable force that is used against those seeking out justice (which
    is also legal)

    You
    posted this under the assumption that the constitution only applies to
    the people, and not the government, you are dead wrong. It goes both
    ways sweetheart.

    An opinion piece is nothing without fact, which you sourced or mentioned NONE of them.

    • Adam! You are insane! No, really. I can tell. I spent some time in a mental ward. They let me out, but trust me, I have seen the difference between creepy psychos and broken normal people. Believe me, You are a frikken high strung, freaked out, paranoid nutjob. GET LAID! Smoke a doobie! Talk it all out with someone nice. You need to cool the batshit crazy talk before someone gets hurt. Mellow the fuck out, bro.

      • tommympt

        I haven’t been institutionalized in a mental hospital,
        however; I’ve spoken with several who were, and should still be there. Attempting to get them to understand a
        rational thought is near impossible even if they take their medications, which most of them will not, because they believe it is a conspiracy to poison or brainwash them. They cause so much sorrow for those that love them or have their best interest at heart. Almost all of the gun nuts that believe the
        second amendment was written to protect us from ourselves fall in the category of the seriously irrational. Unfortunately,
        the GOP and NRA are throwing jet fuel on their fire in hopes of building their base. Our country is in for some much
        worse problems if we don’t eradicate them with constitutional means. Vote…..

      • So you’re promoting a sort of genocide against people because you think gun owners are mentally ill? Well maybe you need to be institutionalized for spouting such asinine rhetoric. Your line of reasoning bares a striking resemblance to that of Adolf Hitler and his view of how to deal with the jews during world war 2.

      • tommympt

        I didn’t imply or even hint at such idiocy. I said, “Almost all of the gun nuts that believe the second amendment was written to protect us from ourselves fall in the category of the seriously irrational.”
        I’ll say it again, the second amendment was not written to protect us from ourselves. I’m a gun owner, mine is
        a 7mm magnum used for game hunting. It will never be used to overthrow my elected government. I don’t know how you read that trash you wrote from my comment. My guess is you’re a troll and I shouldn’t feed you.

      • No the second amendment was written to protect us from the possible tyranny of government. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

        You said “Our country is in for some much
        worse problems if we don’t eradicate them with constitutional means.” By which I know you were referring to “gun nuts” your words not mine. Hitler used the law to ship 11 million Jews to concentration camps and had them summarily killed.

        Since you enjoy name calling like a five year old maybe you should spend more of your time on an elementary play ground among your intellectual equals, and less of it here where adults come to debate and expose themselves to opposing view points so they can grow as people.

      • SyntheticPhylum

        Charlie, baby, you brought up Hitler. Based upon the Holy Precepts of Godwin’s Law, YOU LOSE. Any arguments you bring up, from this point onward, are essentially WORTHLESS. Sorry, sweetheart, but you just shot yourself in the foot.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Uh, who is breaking the constitution and how? You do realize there are people who study decades to be able to interpret the constitution and they still often disagree with each other.

      • Barry Davidson

        Interesting question you pose. Every president who has ever served, with the exception of one, has violated the constitution. The one who didn’t was often called the worst in history until recent decades. I often write articles on constitutional issues. I regularly advise people to read the constitution – we know most of out lawmakers haven’t. The two parts most regularly violated in the last century are the “necessary and proper” and “commerce” clauses.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Interesting…go on.

      • Barry Davidson

        At first, when studying precedent in constitutional law I thought that many of the questions before the courts were presented in the 1800’s and before. With a few exceptions many of the issues being argued no were decided in the 60’s and 70’s. I was amazed to say the least. Take the issue of campaign contributions somehow being an expression of our first amendment right to freedom of speech. That was decided mostly in Buckley v. Valejo in 1976. Mostly, what I’m getting at, is that many so-called interpretations of the constitution were decided upon quite recently historically. In the political messes of the last fifty years judges have decided cases based upon their political ramifications, not the legal.

        As to the original post of this thread, I believe the founding fathers did want a way to limit the power of the federal government, through violence if necessary, just not in the way we think. In their time only wealthy, land owning men made political decisions. They knew they wouldn’t be able to get away with that after just stirring up the masses to revolt. Instead they came up with a way to take down the government if the ruling class should ever become like what they’d just gotten rid of.

        Unfortunately, they left the wording vague on several issues. That’s where we come to the problems now. Take Article I section 8 – the necessary and proper clause which is so routinely used today. The full text says, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
        execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
        Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any
        department or officer thereof.” In other words, they can make all laws necessary and proper to execute the 17 powers given to Congress by the constitution.

        Sorry, I’m wandering here. It’s a holiday, and I’m not quite awake yet.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Thanks for the overview. I agree things have changed in 250 years. And I’m always frustrated with subjective adjectives like “necessary” and “proper.” Gives politicians a lot of wiggle room.

    • crafty

      Adam, you are an idiot…go and re-read the Constitution, or better yet, take a reading comprehension class. If what your saying is what you believe is true, you better get in line with the chain gang of all the big wig GOPer’s. The government is part of the people. People like you see only what you want to see and not what’s really there.

  • huge misinterpretation.

    the purpose of that clause is to prevent charging someone with treason for opposing the government or criticizing it.

    “levying war” is not “preparing for war”, it is WAGING war. and the clause defines treason as levying war against “the united states” not against “the government of the united states”. meaning that it is not treason to rise up against that government if it wages war against the united states and its people–ie, if the government commits treason.

    • Peter Wills

      What degrees and qualifications do you have to support your position?

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      And when, pray, has the government committed treason? Stupidity, yes, but not treason.

    • Raylusk

      The misinterpretation is your doing. When the government has been elected by the people, those that actively work to overthrow that government through violence are in fact committing treason both against the government and their fellow citizens.

      • Robert Thorne

        Yes and the connection made between people who have guns and the people actively committing treason is a complete fallacy.

    • chrisslowik

      so if you kill all the government and then take over the country thats not treason. ok cool, thanks mr. constitutional scholar.

      how do you know when you’re actually harming the united states and not just ‘the government of the united states’?

      you are so so stupid.

      • crafty

        Aren’t they one in the same?

    • Mike

      Its conspiracy to commit treason. While that may not be “levying war” in the immediate sense, it is no less treasonous or dangerous.

      • redc1c4

        not the way the law is written.

        just because you want something to be true doesn’t mean it is.

        HTH.

  • Mister_Mean

    They seem like traitors to me. Wanting to succeed from the union or over throw a democratically elected government. Hang em all.

    • SpellChecker

      *secede

      • Mister_Mean

        Thank you for the correction. I am spelling challenged. This is not the first time this word had bitten me. OUCH!

      • You know what Mark Twain said. “I could never respect a man who could spell a word only one way.”

      • Mister_Mean

        Yep I keep on getting tripped up on word and it’s spelling. Have it written down on a cheat sheet as I keep tripping over it. And even spell check flagged it. You got me right on Ed. I have corrected it in the original post.

      • Mister_Mean

        Please see my response to Ed below-Yep you got me!

    • fawa

      Democratically elected but Republic ruled.

    • redc1c4

      it’s really hard to get a noose around the neck of an armed citizen.

      who are you planning on getting to do your dirty w*rk for you?

      • Mister_Mean

        1) don’t think work needs an * in it-not a dirty word as I see it (though I did feel this way about the duties I performed at my last place of employment).

        2)While I do support the 2nd amendment rights I truly doubt that anyone could do anything to stop the “guberment” from doing what ever they want. Look at history-Waco and David Koresh (spelling) and Ruby Ridge to cite two instances. Those against the authorities committed what amounts to suicide.

        3)Most traitors are hung after a trial -do not advocate lynchings.

        4)Odds are that this post and yours are monitored by the NSA. Keep an eye out your window for those black helicopters and SUV’s (I hear that they like Chevy Suburbans painted black w tinted windows). Check too under your bed.

        5)Live here in Texas where Gov. Ops wears this secession on his arm like a badge of honor. Have had people comment on it when I have traveled out of state and they see the license plate-“Oh I see your from the Republic”. Our gov. is an idiot. Seem to recall that he mistook New Orleans LA for Florida last weekend. He is a fool and makes the state look like one too.

      • Marc Weers

        No one is saying to use them to overthrow the government. It is not necessarily the overlarge government that is the problem. It isd for removing those that pervert the constitution and our rights and ignore or “fix” the law by corrupt means. The thought that the federal government is too big is false and just used to give feelings of being overwhelmed. 20 people in a compound or shooting unarmed women and children is not like facing an army of ticked off Americans. Why do you think no country will attack us directly.

      • Alex Leslie

        I agree with your use of the word Necessarily. I personaly am for a minimal government.

      • Jeff Hepler

        It’s a little hard at times to remove the corrupt when the whole system has been perverted. Too much money in the mix buying the elections. Too many promises of other peoples money in someones pocket in exchange for a vote. Too many lobbyists. The ordinary person doesn’t stand a chance against that kind of onslaught. Either or, the one thing you are missing is this: The only way a people will rise up against the government is if the government has decided to levy war against them. And for all intensive purposes, with the government’s action against Snowden, they pretty much spelled it out to everyone that they consider every single citizen to be their enemy and spied on. Just because you support them doesn’t mean they will spare you and if they do you will be like the jews that were spared in the camps. Spared to dig the graves.

      • Alex Leslie

        Work seems to scare many liberals… For some reason they feel that they deserve a paycheck for sitting at home and smoking weed, while they get tattoos and watch cable and text on an Iphone5 payed for by my tax dollars. I can’t afford tattoos, cable, an Iphone, gold jewelry, etc. and I work. I guess I see why they prefer their J*b to mine. Point taken.

    • Tristan Chris Heiss

      we are not a democracy one..we are a republic. and when 30% of the population living fraudulently elects a criminal the constitution states specifically that we should not can should obver throw the criminal tyrannts. 30% live voters 10% dead voters and about 10% of the 30% who jumped state lines to vote again in states that have littele or no ID laws.. and You dont see a bunch of republicans or libertarians going to jail for fraud tactics You do however see many democrats going to jail for voter fraud still to this day. go see a doctor ..your mental illness is becoming dangerous. and God Bless the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America..and all you 30%? take a hike whilst you still can.. Canada and Mexico will take you in just like the draft dodgers in the 60’s

      • Do you have any citations for any of these accusations beyond the voices in your head?

      • Adolph Schumer

        Where are the citations for this article?

      • Gandalf

        There is almost no voter fraud whatsoever. Actually, the only instances of attempted voter fraud in the past election were from Conservative groups trying to show how easy it supposedly is to commit voter fraud.

        Also, Democrats didn’t receive any dead votes, but the dead sure did contribute money to GOP superpacs.

      • Ronald Green

        Miami voting districts that were already heavily Democrat report 140 -150 % voter turn out w/ results of, you guessed it, “O’. Philadelphia district that votes 100% for ‘O’. Ohio woman convicted of voter fraud because she voted for ‘O’, 4 times. The list goes on, but…. naw .. nothing to see here.

    • Picky Wassah

      We are a Republic..get your facts straight!

    • Adolph Schumer

      Try it. Or more likely have someone try for you.

  • This article is rubbish considering how our country was founded. All our founding fathers were traitors according to his logic. What he fails to realize is that we the people hold the power to revoke all the privlidges that we granted the government when we the people founded it. He also lacks a basic knowledge of the constitution and likes to cherry pick small portions that seem to support his position when they don’t.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      “What he fails to realize is that we the people hold the power to revoke
      all the privlidges that we granted the government when we the people
      founded it.”

      You don’t really live here, do you?

      • You should never assume things they make you look unintelligent. I also fear for your safety because if Allen were to stop suddenly you would probably break your neck.

        But just so you can see here is the words from the actual Declaration of Independence. And if your think that they didn’t have this in mind when they drafted the constitution you are a blind and deaf plebeian.

        When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
        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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

        Enjoy broken neck

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Blah, blah, blah. You are talking about an unelected monarchy 250 years ago, not legitimately elected leaders now, which is a REALLY big difference. The paranoid nutjobs who think the government is after them are a minority who resent not getting their own way all the time. If it were up to them, we’d still have segregation or slavery, no social programs and women would be permanent second-class citizens. They don’t realize other people would fight just as hard to preserve that which the whackos would eliminate.

        I have a simple solution. Let them all move South and secede. They can start their own government and do without our tax dollars. Oh, wait, they tried that in 1861. How’d that work out for them?

      • Wrong the Declaration of Independence is one of this countries founding documents. And the founders of this country reserved that intent in both the constitution and the declaration . Our country was founded 237 years ago not 250. The civil war started because Jefferson Davis attacked Fort Sumter, instead of allowing Lincoln’s request for him to let food, water and medical supplies be delivered to the union soldiers at Fort Sumter.

        Incase you missed it a monarchy is a form of government. If you think a third of the nations population is a minority you’re deluded. It is not paranoia it’s vigilance there is a difference. Maybe you should put down that cup of koolaide that Jim Jones gave you and brush up on history, because governments throughout history have become despotic and tyrannical and people are well advised to heed those examples. As the saying goes those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

        Enjoy broken neck and remember wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You are paranoid.

      • Have we suddenly been transported to an elementary school playground? Careful your lack of intelligence add maturity is showing.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        If there ever was a time for armed insurrection, it would have been the Nixon years or maybe Dubya. But that’s now how things work here. I am not afraid of “gummint tyranny.” You, on the other hand, have admitted to such. I am not so foolish as to believe We the People could really topple the US government/military in an armed conflict, nor do I think it would ever be necessary. Anyone who truly believes they’re in danger of succumbing to tyranny in the US is truly paranoid. So, no, it is not a lack of intelligence or maturity. It comes from living through six decades of apocalyptic predictions that have never materialized. And from the observation that those who are afraid of the government are largely white, rural, Southern (or all three), who think their privileged position at the top of the heap is being threatened. Taxing you and forcing you to buy health insurance is not “tyranny.”

      • And from the observation that those who are afraid of the government are largely white, rural, Southern (or all three),
        Way to stereotype real mature.

        Taxing you and forcing you to buy health insurance is not “tyranny.” Actually it is. Here is why. The government has no right to interfere with our life choices as long as those choices do not infringe on another persons liberties. The ACA is a direct infringement on everyone’s freedom of choice.

        For an in depth look at taxation look at my posts on Destroying the notion of “taxed enough already”.

        “I am not so foolish as to believe We the People could really topple the US”

        Vietnam ring any bells for you? The vc were farmers and patriots who fought against a vastly technologically superior force and yet we still were fought to. Stand still by those farmers. The British empire was the supreme military force of the day when the founding fathers opposed them and won those revolutionaries were civilians.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Vietnam was a small country in a civil war in which we had no business being. Tell me how well that is going in Syria.

        White, rural and southern isn’t a stereotype if it’s based on reality. I don’t see a large number of African-Americans or Hispanics threatening to secede. And every stupid thing I hear come out of a politician’s mouth is almost invariably Republican and more often than not Southern (Texas and South Carolina come to mind immediately).

        The government has every right to interfere with your choices and does so every day. You have to have a driver’s license to drive and you have to be insured. You have to abide by municipal codes. You have to follow speed limits. You have to pay your taxes. And if taxes are so bad, why is it some of the best years of our existence (Eisenhower and Clinton) had much HIGHER tax rates.

        If you don’t want to pay taxes and don’t want to have health insurance, Somalia is beckoning.

      • I seem to remember the whitehouse web page w filled with 45 of the 50 states having petitions to secede from the union that’s not all the south you stereotyped that.
        The government does not have that right unless they bring an indictment against you. As to t your supposition about drivers license, well the government and the state only have the right to regulat commerce. Personal travel from place to place doesn’t constitute commerce.
        “CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

        CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

        It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

        CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

        CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

        As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.”

        “You have to pay your taxes.”
        There are only two types of taxes and they are listed in the constitution they are: direct taxes(which by law have to be apportioned) and indirect taxes. Income taxes are not mentioned anyplace in the constitution.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You can travel freely but you still have to have a driver’s license which means you have minimal capability for driving. That’s why they don’t give them to 10 year olds.

        Go argue the 16th amendment if you don’t like income taxes.

        “The origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913; however, its history actually goes back even further. During the Civil War Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. However, in 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state. The 16th
        amendment, ratified in 1913, removed this objection by allowing the Federal government to tax the income of individuals without regard to the population of each State.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You gonna put your money where your mouth is and take arms up against your tyrannical government or are you just going to complain like an old guy chasing kids off his lawn?

      • The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever
        source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard
        to any census or enumeration.”

        If you talk to any tax attorneys or other so called ‘tax professionals’ they will tell you that the 16th Amendment allowed the income tax to be collected as a direct tax without apportionment among the 50 states. This is totally false, and this is the major problem with today’s tax collection efforts. The IRS believes that the income tax can now be collected as a direct tax without apportionment, and collects it in that fashion. It is totally unconstitutional to collect a direct tax, in the 50 states, without apportionment, as we learned in earlier chapters. We are the victims of mass brainwashing by the government.

        What is apportionment?

        Black’s Law Dictionary says,
        “Apportion. To divide and distribute proportionally.”
        “Apportionment. The process by which legislative seats are distributed among units entitled to representation. The U.S. Constitution provides for a census every ten years, on the basis of which Congress apportions representatives according to population; but each state must have at least one representative.”

        U. S. of A. CONSTITUTION
        Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers…”
        Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4: “No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

        Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states, not among the people. The 16th Amendment did not change this! As we learned, the income tax is an excise tax on corporate profit, and always has been, therefore it does not need to be apportioned. Before the 16th Amendment, an individual’s income was NOT taxable, either with apportionment or without. Eliminating apportionment, among the states, would still require the tax to be imposed on the states, not on the people. To better understand this concept, let’s look at an actual example of taxation by apportionment.

        On July 14, 1798, the Fifth Congress, Session II, Chapter 77, laid the first direct tax on the United States of America in the amount of 2 million dollars. It was to be laid upon the United States of America and apportioned to the states respectively, as per the Constitution.

        What they did was to take the 2 million dollars and divide it equally among the number of people in the United States of America at that time, based on the census. They figured out how many people were in each individual state.

        Then each state was assigned their portion of the tax based on the population of that state. The tax was collected, through the Secretary of the Treasury, by collectors of the internal revenues. (Note: In this case ‘internal revenues’ applies only to the 50 states, since this is a direct tax on the 50 states of the Union) The states collected the tax by assessing the property of the state Citizens, according to the value of the property. Much the same way that property tax is assessed and collected today. This direct tax was just a national property tax laid upon the states according to their population. The states each paid their share proportionally according to their population.

        This is how a direct tax is legally and Constitutionally collected. It is directly on you or something you own (inalienable property rights).

        But, doesn’t everyone believe that the 16th amendment changed the income tax from an indirect excise tax to a direct tax? How can all the authorities be wrong?

        If the authorities were never wrong, the world would still be flat, with the sun circling around it, and we would still be dunking witches.

        Most people think that the income tax is on ALL income you receive from whatever source. That is not correct! The confusion arises from the wrong interpretation of the 16th Amendment (1913). Let’s look at it again. It says:

        “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

        This looks like it is making an exemption and is putting income taxes in the category of direct taxes, to be collected without apportionment. But it isn’t. Remember, they tried this once before in 1894, and it was found unconstitutional! Notice that this amendment doesn’t say whether the tax is to be collected as a direct or indirect tax. It just says that it is collected on ‘incomes without apportionment.’ Can indirect excise taxes be collected without apportionment? Yes. It has always been that way. As we learned previously, the income tax is an excise tax on corporate profits. The only difference is that before the 16th Amendment, corporations did NOT have to pay tax on their property income. The 16th Amendment was passed so that corporate property income could NOW be taxed with an excise tax, IF the property income was connected to a corporate activity.

      • FACT: The 16th amendment to the constitution was:
        1) NOT ratified by the appropriate number of states to amend the constitution

        2) Does not give the United States Government new power of taxation; Specifically, an undermentioned tax (AKA INCOME TAX) (see Supreme court decisions;
        a)Stanton v Baltic Mining 240 US 103
        b) Peck & company v Lowe 247 US 165
        c) Eisner v Macomber 252 US 189
        3) Was pushed through congress during Christmas Break in 1913 when 90% of congress was home with their families and could not contest the amendment.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And it hasn’t been successfully challenged in 100 years…

        “Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments are assertions that the imposition of the U.S. federal income tax is illegal because the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,and without regard to any census or enumeration,” was never properly ratified,[1] or that the amendment provides no power to tax income. Proper ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by tax protesters who argue that the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress, or that Ohio was not a State during ratification.[2]
        Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case where they have been raised and have been identified as legally frivolous.[3]

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Here’s a challenge. Stop paying federal income tax. See what happens.

      • Tax protesters have won. The Supreme Court held that the sixteenth amendment conferred no new powers of taxation to the government which means taxes are still either direct or indirect or taxes placed on capital gains.

      • Appeal Exposes Sham Tax Trial, Simkanin Appeal Underway Case ongoing as of March 30, 2005.
        Texas business owner Dick Simkanin’s appeal is finally underway in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. This appeal is being made after two failed attempts by the government (in 2001 and 2002), before two separate grand juries to indict Simkanin (after hearing direct testimony from him), a successful indictment by a grand jury (where Simkanin was prevented from testifying), one mis-trial ending in a “hung jury” (where Simkanin testified freely on the witness stand), a second patently flawed criminal trial (and conviction) that made a mockery of Justice and Simkanin’s Due Process rights, and 21 months of incarceration. Simkanin is appealing his conviction for multiple tax charges stemming from his belief that no law required him to withhold taxes from the paychecks of his workers and no law required him to file a federal tax return.

        IRS: Gut Schulz v IRS, DOJ: Court’s Opinion Threatens Tax System Case ongoing as of March 9, 2005.
        Schulz Responds; On March 1st, IRS and DOJ filed a motion with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asking the Court to amend its January ruling in Schulz v IRS (Case No. 04-0196). Today, March 9, 2005, Bob Schulz mailed to the Court in Manhattan his brief opposing that motion.

        “IRS LOCKOUT” for former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph R. “Joe” Banister Case ongoing as of March 7, 2005.
        Well, the Government wasn’t satisfied with a star chamber IRS “disbarment” proceeding and a federal criminal indictment against me!.
        Just when I felt my family and I had absorbed all the Government could dish out, I received an “Accusation” document from the California Board of Accountancy (CBA) several days ago, which seeks to suspend or revoke my Certified Public Accountant (CPA) credentials.
        My trial was rescheduled for June 14, 2005, and Al Thompson’s trial proceeded as initially scheduled on January 19th.

        Court Grants Our Motion For Sur-Reply: We the People Foundation v U.S. Case ongoing as of February 27, 2005.
        DOJ Faces Tall Constitutional Hurdles On Its Motion To Dismiss Last week, the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC granted We The People the final word in the now months-long battle over the government’s Motion to Dismiss the People’s landmark Right-to-Petition lawsuit. The court, in a relatively infrequent move, granted WTP’s motion for permission to file a “Sur-Reply” to counter new arguments raised in the government’s Reply to WTP’s opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The government had expected its Reply would be the final pleading on its motion to dismiss, and then opposed WTP’s motion for permission to file a Sur-Reply. In its Reply, the Department of Justice did not rebut the formidable arguments put forth by WTP in opposition to the Government’s claim of “sovereign immunity” as a bar to being sued.

        Redding tax resister convicted in federal court Case closed as of February 5, 2005.
        A Redding tax resister who stopped paying personal income taxes in 1999 and quit withholding taxes from his employees’ checks in 2000 was convicted Friday of 13 criminal tax charges with a tax loss of $256,000.

        “NO MORE PERSONAL AND PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.” Case ongoing as of February 2, 2005.
        On Tuesday, February 2nd, Bob Schulz, Chairman of the We The People Foundation, taped a copy of last week’s Court of Appeals decision in Schulz v. IRS (Case No. 04-0196-cv) to the front door of his local IRS office in Queensbury, NY. The document was accompanied by the WTP press release regarding the court’s ruling.

        Tax Protestor Imprisoned for Refusal to Obey Court Order Requiring Filing of Delinquent Tax Return Case ongoing as of April 15, 2004.
        Cencal Aviation Owner, Walter “Al” Thompson, Had Stopped Withholding Federal Taxes From Employees’ Wages. WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Justice Department announced today that the U.S. Marshals Service has arrested Walter “Al” Thompson, of Shasta Lake, California. Thompson, owner of Cencal Sales Company and Cencal Aviation Products, was found in contempt of court on March 5, 2004, for failing to obey an order entered last September by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The March 5th order states that Thompson will be held in jail until he complies with the September order.

        Memphis Pilot Acquitted Of Tax Evasion Decided August 8, 2003.
        On Friday, a Memphis federal jury acquitted FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin of six counts of felony Tax Evasion and Willful Failure to File tax returns. The case is: U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee (Memphis) # 03-CR-20111, USA v. Kuglin.

        Inside Oklahoma’s 16th Amendment lawsuit Decided March 5, 2002.
        BENSON v. HUNTER 2002 OK CIV APP 44, 45 P.3d 444
        William J. Benson (Taxpayer) appeals from the trial court’s November 6, 2001, order granting summary judgment to Mike Hunter, Oklahoma Secretary of State (Secretary), dismissing Taxpayer’s suit against Secretary. Taxpayer alleged Oklahoma’s 1910 ratification of the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution was invalid, and therefore the 16th Amendment, imposing an income tax, is void. The appeal was assigned to the accelerated docket pursuant to Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.36, 12 O.S. Supp. 2000, ch. 15, app. 1. Based upon our review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The Court noted that the case “was commenced by the appellant [John R. Stanton] as a stockholder of the Baltic Mining Company, the appellee,to enjoin [i.e., prevent] the voluntary payment by the corporation and its officers of the tax assessed against it under the income tax section of the tariff act of October 3, 1913.” On a direct appeal from the
        trial court, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, which had dismissed Stanton’s motion (i.e., had rejected Stanton’s request) for a court order to prevent Baltic Mining Company from paying the income tax.

        Stanton argued that the tax law was unconstitutional and void under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the law denied “to mining companies and their stockholders equal protection of the laws and deprive[d] them of their property
        without due process of law.” The Court rejected that argument. Stanton also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment “authorizes only an exceptional
        direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform” and that therefore the income tax was “not within the authority of that Amendment.” The Court also rejected this argument.
        Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the constitutionality of the income tax under the 1913 Act, contradicts those tax protesters arguments that the income tax is unconstitutional under either the Fifth Amendment or the Sixteenth Amendment.

      • But in Baltic Mining, the Court was dealing with the Income Tax Law of 1913, the same law it dealt with in Brushaber and the direct statutory ancestor of our present income tax law. The tax was not a corporation or mining operations tax, it was an income tax and identified itself as such.

        The Court had only two options: 1) Find that the income tax was taxing both the income and the capital and, therefore, unconstitutional, or 2) find that the income tax was taxing something else. It went with the something else. After stating the case and respective positions, the Court briefly and simply stated:

        “. . . independently of the effect of the operation of the Sixteenth Amendment it was settled in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, that such a tax is not a tax upon property as such because of its ownership, but a true excise levied on the results of the business of carrying on mining operations.” Id at 114
        (emphasis added)

        The clear and unmistakable message here is that the only tax that could tax more than income, gross receipts without allowance of deduction for the depletion of the ore body, was a corporate or manufacture of commodities based excise tax. If the income tax could constitutionally tax income of a mining operation, which would include taxing the depletion of its ore body, then the Court would have simply said so. It did not because it could not.

      • You can travel freely but you still have to have a driver’s license which means you have minimal capability for driving.

        The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of “driving without a license.” It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a “win” in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.

        The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver’s license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver’s license.

      • If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

        “Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.”
        Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

        The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

        RIGHTS

        The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

        “Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”
        16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

        This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

        “Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
        II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

        and further …

        “Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”
        Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;
        Blackstone’s Commentary 134;
        Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777

        Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the “most sacred of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

        When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

        “…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
        “Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.”
        Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75

        Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

        “…Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.”
        Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

        It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or “privilege.” We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”. Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.

        “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
        Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

        and …

        “The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”
        Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489

        and …

        “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”
        Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

        Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.

        “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
        Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
        Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
        Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
        25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

        and …

        “The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
        Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

        So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

        “… For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.”
        State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
        Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
        Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
        Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

        Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.

        “Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.”
        Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
        Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

      • “The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.”
        State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864

        What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so “radically and obviously” from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very “radical and obvious” difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:

        “The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
        and …

        “This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.”
        State vs. City of Spokane, supra.

        This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.

        “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
        Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

        and …

        “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”
        Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
        Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

        There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)

        “Personal liberty — or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty — is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. … It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”
        16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987

        As we can see, the distinction between a “Right” to use the public roads and a “privilege” to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of “using the road as a place of business” and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. Courts held on this point?

        “First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.”
        Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;
        Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
        Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
        Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
        Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313

        So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the “learned” that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between …

        Travelling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and …
        Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
        “[The roads] … are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business.”
        Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294;
        Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
        Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

        “When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways.”
        Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

        “[The state’s] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith.”
        Ibid.

        “We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate … the use of the highways for gain.”
        Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.

        There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual “using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business.” However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state’s power to convert the individual’s right to travel upon the public roads into a “privilege.”

        Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a “Right” to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a “privilege.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, try arguing that in Illinois. Look up “Hired Truck Scandal.” And were those charges actually dropped, or were they just used as an argument. A rather novel one, but I’ve yet to find a state that doesn’t demand a driver’s license and license plates.

        The other forgotten maxim is taxes give you those roads on which you drive.

      • Look up right to travel v. Driving is a privilege on YouTube by leoneslaw it defines operator, driver, traveler, motor vehicle, and automobile. These definitions are key to understanding what I was talking about. He uses blacks law and bouveries law dictionaries to define those terms. The taxes that maintain the roads come from excise taxes on gas, and from commerce conducted on the roads.

      • Hired Truck implies the person was conducting commerce as apposed to traveling.

      • redc1c4

        here in Failifornia, you don’t need a driver’s license if you are an illegal alien, only if you are a citizen.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Right…so if a cop stops an undocumented with no license, he’ll just say, “Oh well, that’s fine.”??? You are funny.

      • redc1c4

        they don’t arrest them, they don’t cite them, and they don’t impound the vehicle. the registered owner shows up and drives off with the car.

        they go around the corner, change places and the illegal drives off.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And if I ask California cops directly, the response would be…?

      • DEFINITIONS

        In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.

        AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE

        There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

        “The word `automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
        American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

        While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

        “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
        International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

        The term `motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word `automobile.'”
        City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232

        The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

        “Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
        “Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
        Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

        TRAVEL

        The term “travel” is a significant term and is defined as:
        “The term `travel’ and `traveler’ are usually construed in their broad and general sense … so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure.”
        25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717

        “Traveler — One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health.”
        Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
        Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309

        “Travel — To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey.”
        Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034

        Therefore, the term “travel” or “traveler” refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.

        Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase “for hire” never occurs. This term “travel” or “traveler” implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.

        Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.

        DRIVER

        The term “driver” in contradistinction to “traveler,” is defined as:

        “Driver — One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle …”
        Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940

        Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be “travelling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

        OPERATOR

        Today we assume that a “traveler” is a “driver,” and a “driver” is an “operator.” However, this is not the case.

        “It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator’ and `driver’; the `operator’ of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver’ is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both “operator” and “driver.”
        Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658

        To further clarify the definition of an “operator” the court observed that this was a vehicle “for hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.

        This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the “privilege” of using the road for gain.

        This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:

        Travelling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
        Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
        TRAFFIC

        Having defined the terms “automobile,” “motor vehicle,” “traveler,” “driver,” and “operator,” the next term to define is “traffic”:

        “… Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state … will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear …”
        Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26

        Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the “privilege” to use the public roads “at the expense of those operating for gain.”

        In this case, the word “traffic” is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, “vehicles for hire.” The word “traffic” is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.

        “Traffic — Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money …”
        Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307

        Here again, notice that this definition refers to one “conducting business.” No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e .., vehicles for hire.

        Furthermore, the words “traffic” and “travel” must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:

        “…in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them.”
        The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:

        “The word `traffic’ is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities.”
        Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18

        Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word “traffic” (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term “traffic” is business related and therefore, it is a “privilege.” The net result being that “traffic” is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.

      • I could bury you with more definitions and case law but I highly doubt you would read it or even be able to understand the concepts because either you’re to arrogant to admit you’re wrong or you do not want to admit to yourself that you have been bamboozled for the whole of your adult life by the government

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Please do. I’m always interested in fact rather than assumption. People who’ve tried to claim they were sovereign entities who didn’t have to pay taxes have always lost.

        How about not being so coy and just tell us what your beef is with the Feds.

      • Not with the Feds per se more of I think they do many things that are outside the bounds of the constitution. I think the legislators we elect need to hold to being a public servant as apposed to self serving which is what they are for the most part.

      • TropicDave173

        “If the ACA is such a great thing why did congress exempt government members from the law?”

        Simple. They voted themselves an even better plan – one paid for by us. Same with the pay schedule.

        For a party that’s always so keen to rail on about “big government” and the need to shrink it, it’s amazing how many on the right want to get in it and then pass laws restricting those who don’t agree with them. I seem to recall a similar situation in Germany in the early 1930s…

      • TropicDave173

        A short reply here. I don’t disagree with your “right” to travel. You DO, however, have to pay attention to the laws and means that dictate what roads may be travelled and how and where. You don’t want to pay for a driver’s license, fine. Just don’t be seen riding your horse or walking out on the interstates. Take the back roads instead.

      • TropicDave173

        Call it tyranny if you like. But there’s no complaining I’ve read, about taxes on other things such as your mortgage, the guns you own, the car (excuse me, ‘pick m’ up truck’) you drive or any of the other things you have purchased over the years.

        And if you have EVER used a government agency at ANY level, then any cry of tyranny smacks of hypocrisy. Apparently you were schooled – at a public institution? Driven anywhere when you were young? Do you drive now? Do you follow the rules of the road and the traffic lights? PUBLIC roads, public traffic laws, public signs and lights…paid for by all of us who pay our taxes since we can’t by ourselves build them. It’s why we – for the most part, recent history of the past decade or so notwithstanding – all get along and can live with each other without having it yet come to blows.

        I didn’t mention time standards, weights and measures, the military, police, fire and EMS, parks, waterways or a thousand other ways the government has organized our lives without us thinking about it – and we pay our car insurance (the best argument for ACA against the whole “forced insurance” argument), fishing licenses, boat/car/truck registrations, and so on without a peep.

        Either it’s all “tyranny” – or it isn’t. You can’t cherry-pick your arguments, Charles.

      • TropicDave173

        The problem existed 250 years ago, with George III’s monarchy in full swing, so he’s actually correct. In my opinion, it wasn’t until 232 years ago, that we can really claim our nation started with the defeat of the British in the Revolutionary War. Most, as yourself do, claim 1776 (237 years ago) as the inception point. But we hadn’t WON our independence at that point, just DECLARED it. What if we’d lost the war (not inconceivable had the British been more willing to win – read Barbara Tuchman’s “March of Folly”)?

        Actually, with the Constitutional Convention not taking place until 1787 (226 years), and the document as it stands now not ratified until 1788 (225 years) it wasn’t until things got rolling before the present style of government was truly in place. Congress was not elected and seated until April of 1789 (224 years), the executive branch not until Washington’s inauguration two weeks later, and the judicial branch not until February 1790 (223 years). You could actually date our government from that time (14 years later than what most consider) if you really wanted to get technical about it. Me, I figure the day we actually won our independence as the more accurate…but, my post notwithstanding, it’s really not something to get all “het up about”. There are far bigger fish to fry these days, such as the corporate influence in our legislative branch.

        As for Jefferson Davis attacking Fort Sumter…busy man, no? You’d think he would have gotten some help.

    • Raylusk

      Nope it’s you who cherry pick and can’t support your position.

      • The issue of Parliament’s authority in the colonies became a crisis after Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in 1774 to punish the Province of Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Many colonists saw the Coercive Acts as a violation of the British Constitution and thus a threat to the liberties of all of British America. In September 1774, the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia to coordinate a response. Congress organized a boycott of British goods and petitioned the king for repeal of the acts. These measures were unsuccessful because King George III and the ministry of Prime Minister Lord North were determined not to retreat on the question of parliamentary supremacy. As the king wrote to North in November 1774, “blows must decide whether they are to be subject to this country or independent”.[16]

        The fact is the people who founded this country and the constitution knew that if they lost the revolutionary war they would have been hung/shot as traitors.

        The Declaration of Independence clearly states that we the people have the right to alter or abolish our government and that government derives its “JUST” power from the consent of the governed. This historical fact seems to have inured you raylusk. And if you think that thinking did not cover their drafting of the constitution you are sadly mistaken.

        The men whom founded this country also tried every avenue available with in the system to redress their grievances, and when the British crown rebuffed those attempts they started the revolutionary war because it was their last resort to achieve liberty for themselves and their posterity.

    • Adam

      Charles, it seems that I see your long, rambling responses criticizing people for voicing an opinion you disagree with every single day. Is your life so bereft of meaning that you feel the need to troll a page that you don’t like in order to pump up your own self-worth?

      • The stuff I post is backed historically and in the case of drivers licensing in this thread are backed by case law and legal precedent. I don’t think you know what trolling is. I also come to pages like this to broaden my view of the world, some things I agree with and some I don’t. In any event a persons self worth doesn’t come from outside sources. My self worth comes from expanding my knowledge and expanding my horizons, you have apparently not grasped any of those concepts. And finally your reply doesn’t add anything to this threads topic and as such is basically trolling.

  • The best part about these guys is most, not all, but most are as big a coward as they are an idiot, thats why they feel the need for the gun. Pinch comes to shove and most of them would turn and run like hell!

    • Sylvain

      Technically speaking in some parts of the country you do need weapons for self defense. Imagine that you are a farmer in Wyoming that gets attacked. Cops could be many hours away. It really is the Wild west out there.

      HOWEVER;
      I agree with you. These people are ridiculously retarded. But then again, do notice that the average Tea Partier probably does not have more then a high school education (and that is THEIR kind of high school). They probably have not been educated to think critically.

      Same goes for religious people (extremists) of all faiths. Most of them just lack the education to make better decisions and are easily manipulated.

      • Tarambana

        “More THEN a high school education” THEN. It’s “than” Silvain, and it’s arrogant to acuse people of being uneducated while you can’t even spell properly.

      • intonare

        Accuse

      • Jaz2121

        That’s the only defense you have against what Sylvain said? Weak man, just weak. Instead of being a grammar Nazi, why not read it again and pull your head out of your ass.

      • Fracker

        As Tarambana is pulling his head out of his a**, I will also pull mine out and support his argument. I read Sylvain’s post again. He’s right about Wyoming and most states, cities, and counties – the police don’t have the reaction time of an armed potential victim. HOWEVER, to say that “these people are ridiculously retarded…don’t have more than a high school education, and can’t think critically is a broad-brushed blanket statement (I know – I am being redundant) that adds no value to the conversation and is nothing but an ad hominem attack (i.e. irrelevant attack against a person/people rather than against the argument). Part of being educated is knowing how to use grammar properly, and critical thinking involves making logical arguments rather than using common logic fallacies.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        But no one is trying to take your guns.

      • redc1c4

        but we still need a list of every one you own because trust us.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Proposed legislation specifically prohibited a registry. I still don’t have a problem with it. Why do you? When has government EVER tried to confiscate guns?

      • redc1c4

        it happens all the time here in Failifornia, and elsewhere.

        if you’re not planning on taking them, why do you need a list?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So you can track them if they are stolen, fall into the wrong hands. Show me where California has tried to take guns away from people who aren’t whack jobs.

      • Guy L Laraway Jr

        And they are starting to in Illinois.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh huh…show me.

      • If you’re going to call someone uneducated you might want to spell check/grammar check yourself before posting.

      • Jebus

        It was a relevant rebuttal. The guy can’t even postulate a proper sentence yet he is talking about someone else’s lack of education. Read a book.

      • Gandalf

        However, Tarambana couldn’t even spell Sylvian’s name correctly when it was right in front of him. In addition, a relevant rebuttal would have had content instead of disregarding Sylvian’s post completely because he used the wrong form of “than”.

        I also find great amusement in Tarambana’s incorrect spelling of “accuse” in his rant about improper grammar.

      • J.D.

        Obviously, when George Zimmerman defended his life against Trayvon Martin, he wasn’t in Wyoming… cops were far enough away that they would not have possibly gotten there in time to stop Martin from cracking Zimmerman’s head on the concrete that he was so hell bent on using as a murder weapon. it doesn’t take much to put a life in danger. So, your point about Wyoming is a little irrelevant.

        That said, do bear in mind that it was “gun control” that enabled Hitler to murder 6 million Jews… Stalin to kill 20 million, and for Mao to kill 40 – 70 million people.

        yes, the second Amendment is to protect people from evil government. Evil government is any government that would seek to take away a people’s ability to defend themselves.

        In actuality, I believe that Tea Party affiliates are more likely to be educated beyond HS, and are indeed more likely to be affluent small business owners.

        But to attempt to pull someone through the mud because you disagree with their politics is foolish.

        That said, perhaps you should look into places like New York and Illinois… and the District of Columbia for gun control success… but that, again, would be foolish, because there is no success there… just very high murder statistics.

        The bottom line is simply, that the argument for gun control is a blatant fallacy. Governments rise to the occasion of totalitarianism, and from time to time, need to be cut down to size… and sometimes, that has to happen at the end of a gun.

        At the end of the day, it may be about a forced gun grab… and to that, I say, Molon Labe… You can take mine over my dead body. That may be a tempting offer for the left, since it has every indication of being a culture of oppression and death.

      • Joe Patriot

        Sylvain, have you ever read the Bible? Or is it too complicated for you to understand? You are obviously an ignorant fool to make such a generalization. I happen to be a religious person and a conservative (extremist according to you). I have a B.S. and 2 A.S. Do you know what B.S and A.S. means? If you’re going to make a post on a public forum at least use a little “critical thinking.” You really make yourself sound like an uneducated, narrow minded fool; like a liberal!

    • YouKnowMe

      One of the funniest things I ever saw was Al Franken talking to some rabid conservatives about ACA. All the dweat big, strong, snuffly mustache-crossed-arms-and-mirrored-sunglasses MEN were standing at the back, demure as debutantes, while it was WOMEN getting up in Al’s face. Of course Al was completely reasonable and calmed the women down right quick, but no conservative he-man was gonna go up against . . . a comedian.

      • redc1c4

        Al Franken isn’t a comedian: he’s just a joke.

    • Joan Brown

      My opinion is that most of the gun rights activists think that owning one or more of multiple types of guns and toting them all over like back in the wild west days, makes them look more macho, big, bad, and brave. That goes for the women activists too. You can tell it by the language they use and the way the strut when they are armed.

      • Visitor

        Joan,
        perhaps what you perceive as a “strut’ is simply the way that people walk when they are paying attention to their surroundings.
        I don’t feel a gun makes me look more macho, big, bad and brave. I’m a disabled woman that can’t run away to obtain safety. And I have no doubt that I’m brave. I don’t need a firearm to tell me that. I proved it as an LEO and as a soldier.
        I think you are a sniveling coward for not taking responsibility for your own safety. Just how special do you think you are? What gives you the right to call people like me and demand that we do your killing for you? Why don’t you “woman-up” and take responsibility for your own safety?

    • jeff

      I think that is a load of bull shit. Other than my gun, I am physically fit, and trained in a martial art. And I never run. ever. people that know me, which you don’t, would back that statement up.

  • mike

    if you are unhappy with government, don’t vote for the incumbent. Duh……

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Or move to another country.

  • Ash

    This is the most ignorant article I’ve ever read. Jesus.

    • Raylusk

      How so? You advocate overthrowing our government you are a traitor as defined by the Constitution. It’s as simple as that.

  • Right On!!!

  • Diana Bauer

    Does anyone seriously believe that at the birth of our nation, our founding fathers were looking to insert a “self’-destruct” clause? That is insane on the face of it.

    • As a sci-fi nerd, I always wondered why they had those.

  • Guy L Laraway Jr

    So how does that 3rd article relate to our federal government supplying arms and money to insurgents who turn those arms against us? And don’t lightly disregard what the founders had to say about armed insurrection.

  • Derpina

    Wow, really? You think we have power to overthrow the government with voting? Even considering the completely corrupt pieces of shit they’ve been shuffling around for the past 50 years? Even considering the Federal Reserve? Wow….just….wow.

    • Tanner Westman

      I wonder how those corrupt pieces of shit get voted into office… Oh wait.

      • Dede

        They get re-elected time after time because most voters don’t even vote (only about a 50% turn out of voters) AND many who do vote, vote the party line and really have no idea who the are voting for. But hope springs because the Millennials are not attached to the 2 major parties like most of us are.

    • Adam

      The beauty of our system of government is that the average voter does not have to be limited to candidates from only two parties. If you really believe that all of our elected officials are “completely corrupt pieces of shit”, what’s stopping you from doing something about it? Why aren’t you voting for other candidates? Why aren’t you campaigning for a person who represents your views, or better yet, why aren’t you out running for office yourself?

      Apathy is ruining this country. People are quick to believe that the system is broken, yet do nothing but bitch & moan about how broken the system is. We’re fortunate to live in a country where we have the power to control who leads us, yet a majority of the citizens simply don’t care. I was ashamed at first, but now I’m just angry.

      If you don’t like it, fix it, otherwise quit complaining.

      • Dede

        The system has been rigged for a long, long time to prevent any true competition to the Dems of GOP. (See ballot access laws) It will not be easy, but I do see a day when this could change. But voters are going to have to wake up and see the complete picture. Of course the Mainstream media is not helping this. But then again, they are controled by both parties to a certain extent.

    • Ronald Green

      True that, if you could overthrow the government by voting, they’d make it illegal.

  • THIS GUY!!!

    well everyone….dont think we could fight our own gov…i think we do
    need our guns just in case. and im pretty sure if it came to drones or
    shooting our own citizens a lot of military would go UA …JUST SAYIN
    DONT THINK MY WIFE WILL TK..

  • Christopher Hall

    This shuts the pro-gun nuts up: The first four words of the Second Amendment they claim to hold so dear are “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA”. Well regulated means laws regulating those guns. It does not say “Free and unlimited access to weapons of mass destruction”. They need to follow the whole of the Second Amendment, not just the last words they like so much.

    • ?!! If I need to show what stupid is….. Your the person that I will show my friends…. Well Regulated MILITIA dummy! Not regulating firearms… And some reason you neglected the second part of the 2nd Amendment…..”the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”…. Gee why did you neglected that part Mr. Loony Tune?

    • This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

      Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
      — Saturday, December 13, 1777.
      In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians’ tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
      That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
      — Saturday, December 13, 1777.
      I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
      — George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

    • Wrong Alexander Hamilton said in the federalist papers this.
      The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
      — The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
      Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of ‘disciplining’ which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

    • Seriously?

      It also means they train as a militia. A militia is a small army. A lot of these guys that spout stuff about militias don’t actually train in a militia- unless they consider hunting for deer with their buddies as training, or shooting targets in a gun range or on a friend’s property. Militia includes hand to hand, navigating, coordination/recon, physical preparedness, etc. The only part they ‘train’ for is the gun part. They’re not a militia. They’re secessionists and traitors trying to hide under the powdered wig of patriotism.

  • Mike the Gun Owner

    This article and the attending comments about the mental status, morals, and education of the portion of the American people that hold firm to the 2nd Amendment and the ownership of firearms speaks volumes about the ineptitude of the so-called “Progressive” movement. Those that posit that the 2A is out of step with our times do so not for honest reasons but to support and legitimize their own emotional fears of guns and those who are comfortable with them.

  • frrrrrrunkis

    read the declaration of indepence. Mainly this part “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”

  • James P. Sullivan

    Could someone answer me this question: When did Hitler take the peoples’ guns away? I don’t remember ever reading that or seeing it on TV.
    Also, when Hitler was in his bunker, everyone knew the Third Reich was over and everyone had a gun. How come nobody took the initiative and went Second Amendment on Hitler’s ass?

  • Copper_Sky_guy

    Interesting argument. the question is , If it is treason, why hasn’t the government acted on this. it’s either not Treason or there is a lack of political will to tackle it. one could easily interpret a lack of political will as a government fearful of it’s very well armed constituents. Interesting….

  • Observer-n-Disbelief

    lol – Loony-toons – The mis-informed correcting the un-informed, talking about the twisted, mis-interpreted fabric of a hate filled maniac. (Yes they exist on both sides of the argument.)
    I can never understand how one thread of an argument can be twisted to try to support an almost completely unrelated thread of another argument, then be held up as PROOF that the “other side” is “evil”, rather than pointing out that some radical splinter group (or individual) which has been “associated” with one side or another (who would be shunned and disavowed by that side if given half a chance) is the “Crazy / Evil” component.

    BOTH SIDES need to consider that “Political Correctness is Dangerous! Speak-Up! Make a Difference!” Don’t let extremists on “Your Side” establish YOUR talking points. Use your brain, decide if YOU believe THEIR arguments and speak-up. Help form the conversation. Bring reality back to America…

  • endpoint

    @Allen Clifton – In reference to your quote “These people honestly believe we were given the right to “bear arms” so
    that, if need be, we could rise up and overthrow our government”, here you say our rights are given (I’m assuming by the second amendment). Elsewhere, not in this article, you refer to the Supreme Court’s decision that having an abortion is a woman’s constitutionally protected right. Which is it? Are rights given or does the constitution merely recognize pre-existing rights? Were women “given” a right to an abortion or does the right to bear arms pre-exist it’s recognition in the Constitution? I don’t think you can rationally have it both ways. But you can certainly try to if you don’t don’t mind throwing honesty to the wind.

    If you are going to discuss the Constitution with and eye towards it’s meaning you need to put it in historical context and at least TRY to square it with the understanding of it’s meaning by the States that ratified it. I’ll leave that to you as I’ve wasted too many keystrokes already. Suffice it to say, I think you have gotten it horribly wrong historically.

  • Patty kane

    I guess it would depend on who won, now, wouldn’t it?

  • From the Declaration of Independence: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…”

  • Phoenix Aquua

    Treason is only applicable if the government is in “control” by the very constitution you speak of. You can’t just pick one article….

  • Price Weston

    Martial law declared nationwide, constitution suspended, federal voting suspended, decades pass with DHS patrolling US streets, Democratic government now non-existant and no form of redress. Big brother monitors all cameras, microphones, and gps in everything. Load, aim, fire. (Full disclosure: I’ve never owned or fired a gun but am thinking that one day the inevitable will arrive as it always does when governments reach maximum corruption, the need will arise to become an active patriot and not in the PC way.) 300 million guns in the hands of citizens is a start. Freedom is best maintained when the ratio of citizen guns to government guns is very large. Treason is what the losers will be charged with, heros are what the winners are called – a very fine line divides the two.

  • kiljoy616

    So who is to say that the Military would side on the side of a Government who has gone dictatorial. We are talking about citizens been armed and this article has just put a bunch of nonsense about how been vigilant means they are traitors.

    Yes keep cowering its ok, not like most would do anything at all but chastise those who would appose a government that had gone rouge.

  • Dissenter13

    While I can forgive Allen for not knowing dick about constitutional law, it is really poor form for a political scientist to not know political science. This piece doesn’t just jump the shark; it does a 720 with a back flip.

    The absolute right to assassinate a tyrant in defense of lives and liberties has been recognized by Anglo-American law since before Magna Carta, and in civilized societies for many centuries before that. Cicero asserted that it was “morally right to kill” tyrants, as they are “monsters … in human form [who] should be cut off from … the common body of humanity.” 3 Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Officiis, 299 (T. Page and W. Rouse, ed., W. Miller, trans., 1921) (44 B.C.E.). Greek states, observes Xenophon, would “bestow great honour on him who kills a tyrant.” Xenophon, Hiero, A Dialogue on Royalty, as reprinted in Xenophon’s Minor Works 55 (J.S. Watson, trans., 1898) (ca. 370 B.C.E.). And while the erstwhile Saul of Tarsus advised his followers to submit to the rule of Rome, Christian theologians since Augustine have consistently held that “ what is done unjustly, is done unlawfully.” St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIX, Ch. 21 (J. Healey trans. 1610) (ca. 415 A.D.).

    What is tyranny? The paradigmatic definition is given by John Locke:

    “AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. …

    Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.”

    John Locke, Second Treatise of Government §§ 199. 202 (1695) (emphasis added). See also, The Declaration of Independence, para. 4 (U.S. 1776).

    The absolute right to kill a tyrant, whether s/he wears a black robe or a gaudy crown, devolves from natural law—an “inalienable” right, which no government may bestow or lawfully abridge. Declaration of Independence, para. 1. When “men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.” N.H. Const. art. 3. As such, “whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual,” id., art. 10, an aggrieved citizen may exercise his or her “natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” 1 Blackstone, Commentaries at 144, against an oppressor, for “[t]he doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” N.H. Const. art. 10.

    That having been said, as a matter of law and logic, a right cannot exist without an effective remedy for its breach. Ashby v. White [1703] 92 Eng.Rep. 126, 136 (H.C.); accord, Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1884) (“To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a right is to take away the right itself.”). And the effective remedy is an armed populace. The Framers’ concurrences read like a Brandeis brief, because they read Cicero in the original Latin and Montesquieu in the original French, unlike so many of us today.

    As for the need for secession by Jesusland, I’d be perfectly happy to let the South secede. The inbreds are a net drain on our economy, and I’m tired of keeping these leeches afloat.

    Allen, I would strongly recommend that you invest a few hours listening to Yale’s on-line course, Intro to Political Philosophy

  • Konrad Omeltschenko Dds

    I posted a comment yesterday and it is still awaiting moderation. What gives? Are you afraid there might be something there that might create a problem for your article?

  • Meshakhad

    I think you may be underestimating how effective an armed population might be. I don’t buy into the conspiracy theories that Obama is going to take away our guns – for that matter, I voted for Obama last election! However, I do believe that part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to allow for a counterweight to the military should the government turn tyrannical. One example would be an obviously stolen election, or a sitting President suppressing dissent and jailing his political opponents.

    The ongoing war in Syria and the 2011 war in Libya provide good examples of how a modern revolution would appear. If the entire US military were to side with the government, then at best the rebels would be akin to a World War II resistance movement. But more likely is that if the government DID turn tyrannical, large portions of the military would defect, providing the rebels with their own advanced weapons. Even so, the rebel troops would probably be outnumbered. This is where the armed populace comes in. If the outnumbered rebel troops have the support of lightly-armed militia groups, that might make the difference. Perhaps more importantly, it would be a lot easier to turn said armed populace into an actual army than it would be for people who’ve never fired a gun in their lives.

    That said, the difference between what I’ve outlined here and what the extremists are saying is that I’m talking about an elected government overstepping its bounds, or an unelected government seizing the reins of power, while they are talking about opposing a non-tyrannical government because they disagree with it. If they do seek to subvert the will of the people, then they are traitors.

  • stephanie

    Good article, but here’s something strange. In the cent of the article on my computer screen is an ad for a military fighting knife.

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    Someone want to define tyranny in the US that would be grievous enough to warrant armed insurrection? Taxes and health insurance mandates aren’t enough to get me riled. Our forefathers railed against “Taxation WITHOUT Representation.” Well, you got representation now. You don’t like taxes? Take it up with your duly elected officials.

    The black-helicopter group would first need enough people to agree with them. That isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. The government isn’t hauling hundreds of thousands of people off to political prisons. There isn’t rioting in the street met by tanks and aerial bombing. No one is taking people from their houses and shooting them in the street. Life is reasonably good for a majority of people; they have far too much to lose.

    Second, try taking on the US military, which has more tanks it can use, unmanned predator drones, the best fighter jets in the world and…nukes. One would have to convince the military to abandon its oath to defend the government and the Constitution. A bunch of weekend warriors with assault rifles ain’t gonna do it.

    • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
      He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
      He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
      He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
      He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
      He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
      He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
      He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
      He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
      He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
      He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
      He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
      He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
      For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
      For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
      For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
      For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
      For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
      For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
      For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
      For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
      He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
      He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
      He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
      He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
      He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You’re not living in 1776. I don’t see anyone forbidding governors to pass laws, requiring people to relinquish the right of representation (unless you are talking about Republican efforts at suppressing votes), called “legislative bodies at places unusual” to “fatigue them into compliance.” Obamacare was passed by Congress. And the “merciless Indian Savages…”rule of warfare” seems to be casinos.

        You are grasping. If you want to go up against the government, feel free. I’ll send flowers to your grave.

      • You asked: “Someone want to define tyranny in the US that would be grievous enough to warrant armed insurrection?”
        And I posted the grievances that the founding fathers considered to be enough tyranny to warrant an armed insurrection and they are as valid now as they were in 1776 just because you don’t believe them to be valid doesn’t make them invalid.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Likewise, just because you believe they’re valid does not make them so. So put your money where your mouth is and start your insurrection. Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.

      • Exactly how is answering your question blowing smoke? And I never said I was starting an insurrection. Why are you assuming I am?

  • The reactionaries are so black-and-white it’s almost funny. Civil war would effectively TKO the United States. Just perfect for the Chinese to move on in.

  • Konrad Omeltschenko Dds

    Lets see if this gets posted. Here is more information regarding the levying of war. Here is a definition of levying war. “Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for himself and three other Justices, confined the meaning of levying war to the actual waging of war. “However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war.” Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. “On the contrary, if it be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.”

  • Pat Kittle

    The gun lobby’s best argument is “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.”

    Hard to deny that.

  • Jane Galt

    That article says it all in a nutshell. People are absolutely insane if they think they can outgun this country’s military. They’re even crazier if they think that the majority of the military would refuse orders to defend against any attempted “takeover.” HAH! Ain’t gonna happen.

    • redc1c4

      how long were you in the service?

      i’m guessing “not at all”. do you even know anyone in the military, or who served?

      if not, you really shouldn’t be opining on what members of the uniformed services will or won’t do in a hypothetical situation.

  • Matthew Kennedy

    When I hear people use the “the army is the most powerful military/nuclear bombs/seal team 6” argument to try to belittle people who believe that an armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical govt. I think of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea. The same thing was said by people trying to get us INTO those wars. I think its just naive to think that an armed populace cannot hold its own and eventually have strategic victories against a greater power. Just imagine if a large and disperse uprising did happen in the USA. The people in revolt look just like you and me. They do not wear uniforms. The Army isnt just going to nuke entire towns and cities. Soldiers are going to have a hard time firing on fellow citizens. Many of them may desert. I just think its a poor argument. I really think its just a way to call people who believe in an armed populace as a deterrent stupid.

  • Jimmy Noname

    You are such a moron. It says advocating treason against the United States. NOT the United States GOVERNMENT. What this means is treason against the people of the United States of America. Which the United States government has been committing repeatedly for decades. So the war should have already been levied on the US Government for committing treason against the people of the United States.

  • DC

    You don’t get it. The oligarchy posing as a government has BECOME the domestic enemy, traitor to the American people.

  • LAW1984ecu

    Not only do you have the right to overthrow your government, it is a responsibility placed on us by a founding fathers. If our government betrays us, acts other then in accordance to our wishes or we feel changes need to be made it is our obligation to do so.

    “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.” –Thomas Jefferson

  • 11BravoCibVet

    Ahh yes a gathering place for statists and cultural marxists without comprehension or care for the constitution or bill of rights. Backing illegitimate government makes you little more than cowards and lapdogs. Its called withdrawl of consent. And its happening all around you! Military,Peace officers etc take an oath to defend the constitution, NOT an illegitimate, illegal government. The majority will stand with the American people if or when tyranny continues to be pressed upon us.. This administration has violated allmost every law of our land in a grand display of arrogant power and sheep like you continue to support it.

  • Gofckurself

    I lol to progressives thinking they ever had a free thought.

  • Joseph

    Its funny because it’s time to overthrow them. They are corrupt and out of control. We can’t get them out because they are so fucking corrupt. They are out of control and it is time. If you don’t agree then you can die with the rest of the swine and the “elected officials”. It’s time for war so man the fuck up and do something, don’t just post on an online thread and feel all big about yourself.

  • Jack

    Ok. Check it out. If 1,000,000 people -.003% of the population marched into the white house and demanded the removal of that Marxist/”Progressive” POG and forcefully (only needing their hands) removed the corrupted senate and congress the military wouldn’t be able to stop us all at once – short of an air-raid.

    Gun Control, Speech Control, Expanded Surveillance, Imminent Domain, The Patriot Act, Liberal Laws and Media Control keep us from getting to that point. Were just to dumb to see it.

    I’m suprised all the people fucked over by the 1% didn’t march into BOA tower and hang the Son of a Bitches for the crap they pulled. Families are suffering losing their life’s work because of those fascist pigs. But we all take it. Because we Americans are irresponsible, greedy, lazy cowards.

  • randomperson

    Actually, the right to bear arms IS to overthrow the government if needed. Our founding fathers feared that the government would become corrupt (which some say it already is) so they gave us guns in case the people lost control of the government. Also, if we needed to overthrow the government, a majority of the military would help us because they are citizens as well and face the same governmental problems the rest of us do.

  • bling219

    Well being stupid on the internet gets you nowhere. The Second Amendmant was handed to the United States Citizens to form a militia and defend us individually from crime. With said Militia inacted it’s to be used for two things, overthrowing the current government and replacing it with a new administration or defense from foreign invaders. “Sometimes the tree of Liberty needs to be quenched with the blood of tyrants and patriots”-Thomas Jefferson. Besides, if you want to stand there and argue then you’ve been brainwashed to much by the democratic Liberals and there crazy shit. I’m not a Republican either, I like the fact gays want to marry. If for some god awefull reason you think your primitave misguided mind needs to argue with me when I’ve already one please do email me. 😉

  • I was going to forward this to acquaintance, but were he to read and understand it his head would explode.

    • redc1c4

      if he reads this, he’ll know the author didn’t have the foggiest idea WTF he was writing about.

      from your comment, you don’t either.

  • George Nestico

    First of all these fools can collect all the guns they want they can have enough Ammo to last thirty years, and a million man army, this is not musket against musket, these fools will be gone like flash paper within the first ten seconds of their first shot from ten miles away and the Gov will never have to put one single boot on the ground, most everything the department of defense is developing now is focused on crowd control, And where are all these KoKo for CoCo puff Jethro and Ellie Mae Yahoo’s, right now as our rights are getting stripped away one at a time, HEL:LO!!!! people in the 1% are getting 78,000 dollar tax breaks for dancing ponies and hiding their money in off shore banks so as not to pay taxes, yet we have to pay 1/3 of our salary, HELLO Jethro and Ellie Mae’s our Tax dollars 5-15 billion is going to subsidize oil companies that are racking in 35 billion every three months, and your party is cutting education HELLO!!!! Corporations have an estimated 22 trillion dollars in off shore banks that they are not paying taxes on, yet your party is trying to destroy the United States Post office who in it’s long history has never been in the red, and in it’s long history has never ever taken a penny of tax payer money where is you outrage!!!! the second largest employer in the world, the largest employer of Veterans and disabled veterans where the [email protected]@$%3 is your outrage, while you Yahoo’s are worrying about your guns, the Gov is stopping people on the street for no reason at all and searching them WTF where is their outrage, women’s rights are being trampled on, where is there Outrage, they can tap your ph without a warrant where is their outrage, they are taking away our right to vote and letting Corporations run our country where is their outrage, So all you dumb ass uneducated KoKo for CoCo puff Jethro and Ellie Mae gun fanatic’s, if the Government wants your guns they’ll just take them and there won’t be a thing you can do, because while you were worried about your pistols the GOV was back door-ing all your other rights and the Ironic thing is it will be the party you support that does it not Obama, after all it was the republicans Trickie Dickie 2 and his little Whipping Boy GWB who in the cover of night while everyone was sleeping who pushed through the patriots act lol see how [email protected]%%ing stupid you people are lol SMH you gun nuts F….. up lol 350 million people in the US and not even one third of them own guns the #’s are not in your favor lol.

  • Cathryn Sykes

    “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” Somehow that phrase always gets ignored–or grossly distorted– by the gun lovers.
    Why did the Founding Fathers write that?
    To start with, they’d just fought a war that almost was lost at the very beginning because they had to rely on badly trained and badly regulated state militias. Washington hated them. They were undisciplined, rowdy and far too often, more interested in fighting each other than the British. They eventually shaped up….but the necessity for “regulating” them was something the FFs never forgot.
    As for the security of a free state, or State….at the end of the Revolutionary War, this small, weak new nation was surrounded by potential invaders: the British from Canada–and remember, they did invade America a generation later–the French from the Louisiana Territory, the Spanish from Mexico. The US could not afford a large standing army, so we HAD to rely on state militias as the nucleus of a “quick defense” military force to delay such an invasion until more troops could be raised and trained.
    Think how absurd the claim is that the FFs intended privately-held guns to be used against the US government! They had just fought a war and worked hard to create a government with checks and balances specifically designed to keep tyranny at bay. Does any thinking person believe that the subtext was “Oh, and in case some citizens get pissed at what the government’s doing, we think they should have the right to start an armed insurrection against the government, instead of expressing their opinions through the right to vote.”

    • redc1c4

      “well regulated” means well trained. it also means that the citizenry should equip themselves with arms suitable for military use.

      in this day and age, it means AR-15’s, Garands, M1A’s etc. you know, all those 3b1L “assault weapons” that get your kinckers in a knot.

      HTH.

  • MaryLF

    Yesterday I read a comment about how both parties are the same, etc., etc. and how “sad” it was that there wasn’t the will to just rise up and revolt. In the context it was like saying “Let’s have a revolution every few years and ditch this whole voting thing”. Yes, SADLY we don’t have a quadrennial revolution.

  • jim55price

    Allen Clifton, I tend to agree with your posts — that is, thus far in recent months I’ve agreed with the half-dozen or so that I’ve read — but I can’t agree with part of your post here.

    You say, “Wouldn’t preparing for, and advocating the possibility of, war against the United States government constitute ‘levying war?'” And I have to say no, “levy” means “levy”, not “advocate the possibility of”. In the first place, possibility itself can’t be legitimately advocated for. Can you roll a die and advocate for a 6?

    The above is a definitional issue, & you can correct it by picking a different verb, or perhaps by building your case differently with the same verb. There is another fault with your reasoning here, though, which is more serious.

    You say that the Constitution doesn’t give us the right to revolt against the government, and you’re right. The Declaration of Independence, however, in its opening paragraph states explicitly that there can be a time when a government fails to an extent which makes rebellion necessary :

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    You may believe that I am arguing for armed insurrection, but I am most emphatically not. The preceding paragraph advocates for dissolution of political bands, not for violence. Granted, those attempting to enact such a dissolution must be prepared for violence, because it will almost surely come. The point remains, however, that disarming the violence-first gun-lobby rhetoric will require a sharp point, and I believe this is it : you may distinguish between legitimate peace-seekers and right-wing lunatics by observing which of them first press their case with the world at large. It seems to be omitted from most folks’ understanding that the primary audience of the Declaration of Independence was legitimately established governments around the world. Our founders wanted our new nation’s future diplomats to be recognized as legitimate statesmen, not as the representatives of armed thugs.

    Here is the underlying fact that makes this issue important : “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable” (JFK, 1962). In America, we have a growing element which is increasingly ready to skip legitimate diplomacy and leap directly into civil war. This delusional element, fueled by the idea that taking the country 150 years backward in time constitutes “peaceful revolution”, is what we most need to address. It isn’t simply a matter of “to gun or not to gun”. It’s a matter of stepping forward and connecting peacefully with the rest of the civilized world, not of picking up convenient weapons and stepping backward into a battlefield graveyard of the past.

  • Scott Jones

    The Second Amendment was pretty much null and void after the formation of the National Guard in 1909. People who think they know the Second Amendment don’t understand that.

    • Vikodlak

      It says the right of the PEOPLE, not militias, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. People like you who can’t read and comprehend English enough to know that the second amendment protects two different things, the right to form a militia and the right to bear arms, and yet insist in participating in the gun debate, makes me laugh at those who really believe they can effect change.

    • milvet

      An Amendment to the Constitution VOID? What are you like 6? Do you know what it takes to do that ? Can you read! Individual Rights

    • redc1c4

      look up the definition of “milita” in Title X of the US Code, and then get back to us with more of your brilliant insights.

  • guest

    Omg…this is a horrible joke of an article. As a member of the military, you all need to realize that, yes, the military WILL side with the people when the government turns against them. The oath everyone involved in the gov’t took states they will defend against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. So to mistakenly say it sounds foolish that gun advocates “actually believe that” are better off than you sheep.

  • Rodney Levenduski

    The mentally ill are not interested in facts, only in their own bizarre dementia. As far as gun wackos are concerned the only important part of the Constitution is how they view the 2nd amendment. They probably haven’t read the 3rd. {EXAMPLE: All the while accusing President Obama of not doing anything about jobs, they have not passed a ‘jobs bill’ but have taken 40 votes to repeal the healthcare bill. That is mental illness.}

  • NomadTV

    As a life long democrat, I see here a lot of ignorance about the constitution the framers, their motives and the issues in general. I see unabashed hate and self righteous intolerance used not to argue a point but in a
    ‘kill em all because they dont agree with us” attitude.

    Remember people, Extremism also exists in the Democratic party and is just as dangerous as that on the right.

  • lmfao

    Nice 8th grade logic bro

  • Joeblow

    What a strawman if ever one existed.
    Armed revolution would be terrible and disgusting. It is a last resort, when everything else fails. I wonder what your solution would be if you lived under a tyrannical gov? Sure, peaceful demonstration is what seems to work like MLK or Gandhi, but what if that also failed?

  • Elena

    Yes, and these are the people who consider themselves true “patriots”. Doesn’t even make sense.

  • Lyola M Roeske Shafer

    I see that there is little point in addressing the question you raise. The possible consequences of this subject are far over the heads and under the boots of the comments I have read. Does anything come next or do we just “wait and see?”

  • Jason Thompson

    Look up the Battle of Athens

  • Jg

    Wow. There are a lot of seriously brain damaged individuals posting here.

  • Not a liberal

    I
    understand where the article is getting at. But Levying war means The
    assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a
    TREASONABLE object; and all who perform any part however minute, or
    however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the
    general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the
    meaning of the constitution. Pushing out a Treasonous government is not
    levying war. Its protecting our people. our likeliness. And our
    country. How again is being free treasonous?

  • Someone who is awake

    Whom ever wrote the article is a nitwit. Btw you all really trust the electronic voting machines built by a company? Idiots. You don’t think someone isn’t making bank having control of such things?

  • Vikodlak

    Has the author of this article ever read the Declaration of Independence?

  • Rob

    The Founders didn’t want people levying war against the US, but they also were not foolish enough to make it not possible, either. Treason is only a valid charge if you lose, as they knew well, thinking about the rope settling around their necks as they put pen to parchment on the Declaration of Independence. It’s a nice theory, voting people out of office, if we actually had integrity to our elections. We don’t. But let’s hear what the sentiment among the Founders at the time was, shall we?

    “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State.” – Alexander Hamilton, Founder

    Overthrowing the government IS treason. But it is NOT to made impossible. Besides, one very important thing you’re forgetting: Patriots don’t seek to OVERTHROW the government by force, Patriots seek to RESTORE the government by force. You know, because elections don’t work any more. So sorry, your weak attempt at self-righteousness falls flat, once again, in face of the facts.

  • liberallogic

    who exactly does youknowme think makes up the US military?
    Who is in the national guard?
    You think liberal, hippie, gun control global warming types are signing up for duty? no, seriously

    The article seems focused on this administration and the author must believe it is pretty corrupt to believe it is the focus of everyone’s angst. Perhaps they are thinking of a future administration that attempts to unconstitutionally strip away rights, such as term limits, civil rights, or free speech?

    None of these people need to explain a RIGHT they currently have, just as you have no need to explain to anyone why you have the right to author such a pseudo-intelectual article.

    Perhaps you want to discuss the phrase, giving them Aid and Comfort as it pertains to Mexican Drug Cartels and fast & furious, or arming the many failed egyptian governments only to have all that free aid in the hands of the enemy.

    oh, by the way, “excellent” “use” “of” “quotation” “marks”.

  • Kirk Weir

    Your Second Amendment analysis is deeply flawed. Try reading the Heller decision. It contains a very detailed historical analysis of the 2A, what it meant to those that drafted and ratified it, and that it protects a right that pre-existed the Constitution (as opposed to granting a right).

  • wingride47

    It is apparent this man has never had to defend his life with a gun. He has never served his country in the military or seen how the rest of the world lives. He has probably never worked a labor intensive job or been poor. He speaks with out knowing what he talks about. He only wants to incite and antagonize people for personal gain. What is sad is It is people like this who have their rights defended by the very guns they are arguing against.

  • Mark B

    No, guns don’t give us that right. Second that right is spelled out in our charter to the international community. That charter for the United States is called the Declaration of Independence. It list the conditions that must exist for overthrow to not be considered treason. It is written in English and should be easy to understand. Familiarize yourself with the content before you spout off!

  • Libtrouncer

    The flaws in this article are astounding. “current free nations which also have very strict laws on gun ownership” Name one. Japan? Hardly a free country. Australia? While they are close, they are hardly as free as the U.S. Britian? The country with one of the highest violent crime rates in the world? “There are also the stories that say the Second Amendment was a compromise with states which supported slavery to give slave owners the right to suppress a possible slave revolt” That’s right, “stories” just as there are stories about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. The one thing this flawed article doesn’t take into consideration or even mention, is the very real possibility of total social collapse. This last point being the more realistic scenrio given the mentality of the author and many like them who put total faith in elected officials who spend more time in back room dealings, lining their pockets for their own gain while further eroding the economic good of this country creating more and more desperate people. Desperate people do desperate things and en masse, create a real threat to society on a whole and guess what? The cops are only minutes away when seconds count. “It’s why each term is given a limited number of years.” With the exception of the President, name one. It doesn’t exist on a Federal level, hence the term career politician. Nice try, but this author has a very narrow view of the 2A and an even more naive approach to politics. Power, Money and Control, the only three things that politicians care about. Guns don’t give the people the right to overthrow the government, freedom and the Declaration of Independance however explicitly states: When in the Course of human Events, it
    becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the
    Political Bands which have connected them with
    another, and to assume among the Powers of the
    Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the
    Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,
    a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind
    requires that they should declare the causes which
    impel them to the Separation.
    So as enlightened as the author seems to think he is, in reality, he appears to be very shallow and even more ignorant of the reality of what freedom actually means. Enjoy your chains sheeple.

  • milvet

    You gutless followers, growing economy? great government! you really are a special kinda stupid. Read the entire Bill of Rights before you try to explain its meaning and purpose from one sentence. Flippin Idiots

  • Smartie

    Look at the Pile of bull shite article I stepped into. In reading this article and these comments, I am embarrassed we have such nincompoops in our country! Yes the 2nd states firearms may be used against a tyrannical government, it states that. Not sure how you idiots read it any other way! Oh and brew, the majority of the mil or Leo will support the constitution!

  • Michael D. Anderson

    You have got to be kidding me? Who ever things this article is full of truths, has there head so far up someones ass, they can smell what you ate for breakfast.

  • King Julian

    You fucking liberals are so goddamn stupid. Nobody in my military would ever follow order’s to attack, or disarm the American people. There is nothing wrong about a responsible American citizen who owns a gun.
    All you retards care about is your precious marijauna legalization. That’s the only important thing in your lives.
    Smoking drugs until you’re even more mentally useless than what you already are.
    Just because you FEAR something you don’t understand, doesn’t mean you just “kill it with fire”
    And for the love of god none of you better say you understand guns when you don’t even know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

  • Roger Cotton

    Traitors calling Americans traitors. If the premise of this piece weren’t already flawed, it would be a pretty good Onion wannabe.

  • Lucius

    Your an idiot sir. If we had fair and free elections, your point would be valid. The fact that we no longer have fair elections due to corruption, invalidates your point, and justifies the patriot movement.Our elected representatives no longer represent “We the people”, they simply look to line their pockets with money from whomever pays them the most money through the lobbyist. Wake up!

  • PavePusher

    Being prepared to revolt is not advocating for a revolt. And your ignorance of history is truely stunning.

  • Aaron III%er

    The founding fathers were also “traitors” to the crown. If you think rebelling against an opressive governmnet is a bad thing, then what exactly are you celebrating each 4th of July?
    If you don’t like guns, then don’t own one. We, law-abiding and responsible gun owners, aren’t trying to force you to buy one. But we will NOT give ours up. If you want us to give up our arms, then I encourage you to be the first to volunteer to come take them from us. Until you’re willing to do that, then you have no real convictions and are only spewing liberal rhetoric and crying for the government to do something about it because you don’t have the intestinal fortitude to do anything yourself. What’s that you say? No, you won’t volunteer to come disarm us because we have guns….hmmm….soooo owning guns is a deterrent to a group of people unfairly imposing their will on us…..interesting how you don’t think the same principle applies to an armed citizenry and a corrupt government….

  • YouCan’tSeeMe

    ah, the typical “you have nothing to fear from the government” propaganda…the government has NEVER done anything “shady”, such as train a young Osama Bin Laden…honestly, i highly doubt that the US military would follow orders to attack US citizens, that’s where drones come into play. btw, why aren’t any of you upset that “your” president destroyed the Fifth Amendment right to due process when he used drones to kill four US citizens? so, explain to me this liberal thinking: it’s inhuman to put to death a person that kills a child in the US (let’s give them life in prison), but it’s perfectly acceptable to murder a US citizen with a drone strike in the name of the “war on terrorism”? …yeah…you guys are pure genius!

  • Wayne A.

    Obama gives aid and comfort to the enemies of America by ensuring that they get foreign aid. That makes him a traitor. And for you idiots who thinks that gun owners would just give up their guns and run like hell when confronted, why don’t you test your theory? Asshats, all of you.

  • Mike M

    Liberals are so fucking stupid is unreal.

  • ProfessorB

    “But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”-Deceleration of Independence

  • chubbym0nky

    The government is not “the” united states it is only the government. The united states is this land and the people. And who is to say the government can’t be run by some crazy loon one day with thoughts on par with that of a modern day Hitler and we come to war with a certain country and as some safety standard he orders anyone with any ancestral ties to said country into concentration camps coz thats never happened in the past here in the US now has it? Oh wait it has! And as far as fighting with our own military it most likely won’t happen what would happen is our maniacal dictator would employ military aid from an ally nation like Russia or China or the UN. People who have no family ties to the people they are ordered to herd up and kill. Anyways there’s a few possibilities. This is where you tell me this will never happen but can’t prove how it could never happen other than by some magical act of “the people” never allowing it to happen or that some how a dictator will listen to the reasoning of democracy. 🙂

  • ryan

    It saddens me that this guy is from Texas. Please go back to California Allen and do NOT ever return to this God Blessed state of Texas. We do not agree nor do we condone your treason filled article. Yes, the 2nd Amendment was written so that the citizens COULD overthrow their government if it became tyrannical. If you do not agree with this, then you can happily move to one of the “free” countries that restrict gun ownership like China and tell me how “free” you are.

  • Mike Gates

    Wouldn’t preparing for, and advocating the possibility of, war against the United States government constitute “levying war?”

    Actually, NO If your degree was worth the paper it’s printed on, you would know that the phrase “levying war” means to declare & wage war. Look it up!

  • Combat Veteran

    This article is filled with misinformation, but the largest of them all is the concept that rising up against the US Government is treacherous to the United States. It may seem counter-intuitive, but a government doesn’t necessarily have the best interest of the population at heart, but rather their best interests, just like virtually any other group of people.

    When a government gets out of control, it is in fact our duty to wrangle it in. Preferably peacefully. Deterrence is a powerful tool for ending situations peacefully. An armed population that is ever-vigilant is an excellent deterrent.

    The second amendment, per it’s authors, highlights the natural right of every human being to arm themselves to defend against those that would take their liberties from wrongdoers, be them elected or not.

    Good effort, and you seem to have a heaping helping of support here, but in the end this article thinks no more critically than the conservative gun owners your supporters seem to have very low opinions of.

    None of you are any more intelligent than your political nemesis. None of them are more intelligent than you.

    Regardless, the second amendment stands. You have the right to defend yourself with weaponry. Amend the constitution if you wish to undermine it, all of these small encroachments have gone too far already and the self-defendable populace in the country has demonstrated that they’re not interested in letting it go further.

  • Dennis Murphy

    So when Obozzo gives money to terroist he is guilty of treason? No, he’s not how did you put, let me just copy and paste for you Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

  • gaige

    Who is it do you think makes up the vast majority of manpower in US Army and USMC combat units?

    People like me, with our weapon’s stockpiles and love of tradition and Constitutional government. Now, ask yourself, whom do you think they/we will side with if and when the balloon goes up?

    • jeff

      Sadly, I think that more than you would think will simply be “following orders” when they are ordered to execute martial law against American Cities. I understand, however, that a vast majority of spec ops will simply disappear, and seek to activate force multipliers… one can only hope.

      • gaige

        Let’s say you’re right for a second. What will these traitorous soldiers be able to do, exactly?

        They don’t have the manpower to do anything other than hold the Northeast and the major cities, which are areas that support them anyway. You think they’re going to be able to send 10th Mountain into Wyoming to root out Patriot insurgents? Sorry, 10th Mountain will be on riot duty in Boston or Denver.

        They don’t have a prayer, unless they took every swinging dick in uniform and put a rifle in his hand and put him on COIN duty. Now, ask yourself how well you think the average sailor or airman would do in those circumstances?

  • Dennis Murphy

    And a person that promotes the act of treason is also a traitor, so by promoting the gifts given to our enemies by the malarkey in this artical you too are committing treason. Aiding and providing comfort to the enemy of the Unites States is not only providing them with Ammo, it is leasing the power of the Armed forces of the United States, by no giving them the means to defend this nation. Giving them Water, a band-aid, money is all reason to try this current government as a whole for committing treason.

    • jeff

      So, our Government is full of traitors, then, since they seem to be aiding and abbetting the enemy Al-Queda all over the middle east. I’m glad that you are aware of this!

  • John

    WOW….the author, while trying to pretend that he knows what he is talking about, puts his foot in his mouth more than once. Article 3 does not apply to the situation of the civilian population rising up against a tyrannical government. Article 3 applies more along the lines of if Britain decided it wanted it’s colonies back (I used Britain since the author attempts to justify his garbage with history) and people aide them in a war with the US. Remember the “American Taliban?” That’s what Article 3 is about.
    And since he brought up the civil war, and the lesson/warning we are supposed to be getting from him. The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. It wasn’t even a remote reason why the North and South fought. It was about States Rights and the infringment upon them by a tyrannical Federal Gov’t. Slavery got brought up as the North’s way of saying FU because they knew that the South relied on the slaves to work their fields and crops. The North’s intention was never about freeing the slaves…they could have cared less.
    So, no, defending your Second Amendment right is not a violation of Article 3.
    Read what our Founding Father’s wrote in the Federalist Papers. They were pretty clear on the reason’s for the 2nd Amendment. Personal protection, protection from a(n) tyrannical Gov’t and assisting their home state or the US, if we ever had a foreign invader.
    Those of you who say that it is about hunting…news flash for you. If you didn’t hunt back then, you didn’t eat.
    And for the other highly educated people out there, like this author, whom say that they were referring to muskets, re-read it. It says ARMS, not muskets. In fact, if you actually read what the founding fathers intention (which I know most of you won’t or even attempt to do), they wanted the population to have arms current with what the military has…keep up with the times in simpliar speak. In this way, a couple of things are accomplished. The first is, if there ever was an invading force, most of the population would have compatible weapons with the military so that all they would have to do is grab their weapon(s) and join the ranks.
    The second, is if the Gov’t did become too powerful, and overstep their enumerated powers (which they have a hundred times over), that the population would not be out-matched technologically by the Feds.
    So let the bashing begin. I highly doubt that I will receive one even remotely non-personal attack, educated debate on this subject. Usually, when the left doesn’t like little things like “facts” they resort to name calling. Just for you future bashers, I am not a Republican so feel free to skip over the Right Wing Nut job crap.
    One last thing before I stop typing. The United States is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. This is so we are not ruled by mob rule, but rather by a Constitution that sets the boundaries for it’s Government. Meaning…it doesn’t matter if 99.9% of the population wants gun control. Our Constitution guarantees that right…hence the “Shall Not Be Infringed.”

  • Dennis Murphy

    What you want more OK. but I’ll leave it at this, When you feal strong enough to pick up a weapon and write out a check payable to the people of the United States of America and put down the pen that you use to write winning little letters like this one you can speak again, other wise take this bit of advise because you need
    a clue. Let me give you one, READ THE U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Right.
    If you do not agree with what is written please remember that the United State
    of America is a free country. You can use these freedoms that we have AND GET
    THE F out Leave Turn in your SSN move to Mexico, there are plenty of housing
    units there that are open to illegal aliens in that country and never come
    back. Africa has a few countries that have plenty of rooms for you and your
    kind also, please go to one of them that have the same B.S. beliefs that you
    and other cronies like you have, may I suggest Kenya. Please take all of your
    political friends with you. Have a Nice Day.

  • insectg

    If I was a Statist, this piece would make my d*ck hard!

  • Dennis Murphy

    Oh the Civil war was fought by two sides of this nations armed forces. Which ever part of the country you happened to be stationed in was which side you ended up on. Before you believe what stupidity a person writes look up the facts for yourself. This Allen Clifton will post what he thinks you want to hear.

  • Jeff

    I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States, from ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

    Each and every person that has ever taken that oath is then a traitor? America is not the Government, it is the Constitution. There are plenty of countries that have banned firearms… please, if you want to live in a gun free nation, show your self out. Make room for those that want to be free.

  • Ray

    The civil war happened in the mid 1800s(1861-1865) total losses for the union 365,000; total loses for the confederates 260,000. If you look at the war up to Gettysburg the south had won almost all of the major engagements if Lee hadn’t invaded the north things would have went a lot different. If you focus on the battle of Gettysburg most rumors in the south said Lee had a stroke or heart attack.

  • Bruce Cory

    ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS……….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 !!!

  • Christopher J. Joubert

    The sheer ignorance of the comments here is amazing.

    3 Things the author should have researched: The Mormon Wars, The Athens, TN incident, and the civil war. Only in 1 of the 3 cases were those who raised arms found guilty of treason.

    Also in order to be levying war, you have to be actively assembling to use force, not just discussing it, not preparing for the possibility. You have to be actually attempting the action,and yes in that moment you could argue that the group doing so is engaged in Treason.

    Levying War: ” The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution.”

    Though a valid argument to the contrary is this: If your government is the one who is breaking the law, the contract with its people, after attempting to obtain legal resolutions that fail due to a corrupted system, are you guilty of treason if you take up arms?

    That is one that the winner gets to write, and the looser pays the price for.

  • Patroit#4

    You people are fucking delusional, term limits don’t prevent or stop shit. Obama is a perfect example, when half the voting population is low information liberal entitlement voters, anything is possible. At least patriots have the balls to stand up for what is right unlike you people. You would do anything to justify what Obama is doing no matter what he did, if he told you to jump off a bridge, you would do it no questions asked, “Obamacare will take care of me after I jump! Free healthcare!!”..yeah right. I’d rather be a conservative nut job than a progressive with no nuts and no job.

  • ProfessorB

    The entire purpose of article 3 is to make sure no branch of the federal government has too much power over its citizens. And section 3 of article 3 is referring to Treason committed against The “United States” as in each individual state and each individual citizen In said state. NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Anyone in government who infringes on any aspect of our freedoms, guaranteed to us through our United States Constitution, regardless of their classification(president, etc.) has to be considered a traitor, especially when you consider they took an oath to defend the United States constitution.
    “But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”-Deceleration of Independence

  • redc1c4

    it is darkly amusing how the left, who hates the military in general, and the people serving in particular, suddenly gets moist at the thought of being able to turn said military against those they disagree with politically.

    you *do* realize, don’t you, that the vast majority of the military
    aren’t shooters, and will lack many of the combat skills necessary to
    perform the cleansing you wish to see happen. the flip side to that
    demographic problem is that there are many citizens out here who
    previously served in combat arms MOS’s, and who still retain their skill
    set, which drastically changes the correlation of forces equation and not to the benefit of your proposed pogrom.

    assuming you could get everyone in uniform to cooperate with your fascist wet dream, which, speaking from my personal experience of over 20 years in uniform, won’t happen, what do you think they are going to be able to do and how long will they be able to act, prior to running out of supplies?

    amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics. one need not actively fight armed personnel if you can cut off their supplies. without fuel, an M1 tank or M2 AFV is just a really vulnerable pillbox. without food, an Infantry company is just a bunch of hungry guys in ugly clothes. without spare parts, your A-10 Warthog or drone are just expensive sculptures.

    strangling the supply lines of an internally deployed military force here in the US would be child’s play, given the nature of the distribution system, current logistical practices and the resources available to the American public. that the author of this pile of dreck and his gleeful supporters doesn’t understand that comes as no surprise.

    after all, reality and the American Left are mutually exclusive sets.

    • Will

      I agree with you on that. I am a member of the Transportation Corps and understand logistics. If the military doesn’t have supplies or equipment then they cease to become an effective fighting force.

      • redc1c4

        well, i always said the most vulnerable point on an Abrams is the fuel truck in the LOGPAC convoy. 😉

        Scouts Out!

  • citizen soldier

    You lefties are seriously as sharp as a bag of marbles. You’ll see who your friends are soon enough, and it wont be that lying muslim filth or his cronies. Enjoy your joint starbucks while you can.

  • Keith Lacey

    Co-founder for Foward Progressives – hmmmm that says it all don’t it? Just key words for Democrat/Progressive/Socialist/Communist. Just because you have a degree doesn’t mean you have any clue what you are talking about. So, keep laughing funny boy, meanwhile the Socialist you put in the White House continues to destroy America. One can twist and skew anything to their point of view, which is exactly what you have done. More Progressive brainwashing….

  • Matthew Groom

    Congratulations, you’re a tool.

  • Will

    Wow! How many of you that believe this article have ever read any of the Founding Fathers, (Men smarter than me and you that wrote the Declaration Of Independence as well as the US Constitution), felt about the idea of fighting the government. George Washington had a quote for it as well as: James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin ETC…. You do realize that the gentlemen that wrote the Constitution just finished fighting a war against a far superior army. The British Military in those times were the largest and best fighting force. Think about that one for a minute?

  • Landon F

    The CONSTITUTION gives us the RIGHT to overthrow our government should the need arise. NOT believing that make YOU the traitor!

  • Joe

    Wow… you liberals are the nastiest, rudest, most bigoted people here. Nearly all of your comments end with you attempting to insult another poster (which is par for the course I suppose). I would be scared to live in a country ruled only by people like you. Speaking of which, the reason why we have a Bill of Rights is to prevent mob rule in this country and to prevent the majority from “voting away the rights” of the minority which is why those on the other side of the argument always try to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment around. Lastly, I am a police officer and I will stand with the citizenry should it ever come to that as I’m sure many in military will also. Shit, if it gets THAT bad, cops won’t even be showing up for work. They will most likely be tending to their own families.
    One more thing… to the poster who said we can “vote out corrupt politicians,” google the “Battle of Athens, Tennessee.”

    • Will

      Amen! I am in the military and I will not go against the Citizens of the United States. I know several of my battles believe as I do. The very first part of our oath is to The US Constitution. If it is that bad also it will be on American Soil. Which means many military members and such will be protecting their family members.

  • Keitar0

    I have firearms and will many get more, it’s my right. Too bad for you 😉

  • Combaticron

    This might have been a thought-provoking article if you’d kept the personal attacks out of it.

  • trickywoo

    The author is an idiot, he doesn’t even understand the constitution! But the ignorance is the liberals power.
    TJ, you give them a lot of power!

  • Todd Jeffrey

    This article is stupidly liberal. If you’re going to cite the Constitution at least know what the fuck you’re taking about. That whole little bit of “Well if that’s true, then what’s with that whole Article Three of our Constitution? You know, the part that reads:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    Well liberals what do you call fast and furious? What do you call giving arms to Syrian rebels to fight their tyrannical government while trying to disarm American citizens! THAT IS TREASON! And you said it yourself! Giving aid and comfort to the enemy! Arming the enemy! The only thing it’s called now, is “foreign aid”.

    And as for the “The Second Amendment was written to give citizens the ability to form militias to defend against threats during a time in our country when the first line of defense on our borders was often the citizens who lived in those areas.” No the second amendment was written so we the people can defend ourselves from enemies BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC! As far as I’m concerned I’m not afraid of some dude riding a camel in Cairo, Egypt. I’m afraid of the Politician riding in a limo in Washington D.C. with armed guards while having a handgun on his/her person while telling me I don’t have a right to self defense!

  • Guest

    would be tyrants will never be considered a legitimate government especially by free Americans!

  • James Northam

    The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
    — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

    “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
    — Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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

    “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
    — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87

    “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
    — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

    No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    — Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334

    These are just a few excerpts from the Federalist Papers. Any questions?

  • Ramirez

    Hmm…. I was under assumption that the Yankees drafted the second amendment to stop a government that grew too big and too out of control. If you look at people like James Madison or Thomas Jefferson, they spoke about the climb of tyranny from within.

    As a Mexican, I learned that there are a few types of Americans. These guys with guns do firmly believe in the phrase “Live Free or Die”

    In Mexico we have something like that too. “It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.”

    • Joe

      Aren’t guns banned in Mexico, Will? Therefore Mexico must be the safest place on Earth right???????

      • redc1c4

        guns aren’t banned in Mexico, but the government has made it nearly impossible for the average citizen to purchase one.

        thus, the only people with guns are criminals & the government, but i repeat myself.

    • Joe Patriot

      Good job Ramirez! You know more about our heritage than many Americans. I’m from N.H. and “Live Free of Die” is our state motto. We have very few gun restrictions in N.H. and very few gun crimes. Most of the gun crimes we do have are committed by thugs that come up from Mass, a state with some of the strictest gun laws, with illegally obtained guns.

  • joatesiii

    Our Nation is doomed…no one is capable of making a rational conversation, on either side of an emotional issue…just insults and a lack of respect…humorous, and sad…

  • Roland Olson

    What makes this writer so sure we would be fighting against our military? Tyrants within our borders would allow any military personnel to follow his oath of service.

  • Unit322

    The author needs to read the Federalist’s Papers. Our forefathers spoke at length about what every right in the Bill of Rights meant in the newly ratified Constitution. They explained that one of the most important reasons for the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government in check by giving the people the means to fight if the government went to a tyrannical government. So the next time you decide to write about the Constitution, do some actual research.

    • Joe Patriot

      Unit, you’re talking about liberals, they don’t like facts.

  • LDK

    Look, I love your site, but you are making a huge mistake. You are making rational, logical arguments. The people who disagree with you (and me) and neither rational nor logical.

  • J August

    Given that logic, since the so-called progressives would love to install a contrarian form of government through ANY means possible,, with the blessings of such publications as “the Nation”, then the keepers of this web site are also guilty of treason.

  • Will

    I find it really funny right now! Let me get this straight, many liberals and progressives that attack the Second Amendment of the US Constitution are now using the US Constitution? So, you are trying to cancel out the Second Amendment of the Constitution which states it is an inalienable right in the Bill Of Rights with the same document? Now on to the next funny part, the liberals/progressives think that the US military will side with them? After all they cut our budget horribly, say they support us but in actuality call us names and undercut us every chance they get. They also will be taking away our inalienable rights. Why would we turn our rights in so willingly? Many military members struggle with the Department Of Defense budget. Why do you think we would back people that obviously don’t really care about us? At least those that are for the Second tell us they support us and actually back it up.

  • Will Basham

    The 2nd amendment is the final line of DEFENCE against a tyrannical domestic power that usurps the power of the Constitution, not a means for the citizenry to start a war whenever we feel like it. Obviously Allen Clifton doesn’t remember his American history because the original patriots were forced to physically defend themselves when the crown sent troops to the colonies to try to disarm their own citizens. The patriots didn’t wage an open war against the crown, they used their 2nd amendment rights to stop a tyrannical power that was using imperial and foreign troops to enforce it’s will upon the colonies. Patriots today are not saying that they will start a war against the US government, they are saying the same thing that I am saying and that is that when the US government tries to override the US Constitution and cross that final line in the sand that the British did then we will not hesitate to stand up and defend our rights as American citizens against this new tyrannical power. If anyone here thinks that using my 2nd amendment rights against a tyrannical power makes me a traitor then you have no right to call yourself an American because the very idea of being an American is that you will stand up and protect that which is most precious to you should that time ever come again. The Founding Fathers recognized this when King George refused the Olive Branch petition and sent troops to the colonies to kill these “radicals” who dare stand up for their freedom against their lord and savior the king. Sitting on your but and calling me a traitor because I am not afraid to protect my rights as an American citizen from a tyrannical power isn’t bravery it’s the strongest form of cowardice that I have ever seen and I feel sorry for all of these good-hearted hypocrites who think that’s it’s perfectly fine to rely upon other people with guns to protect you but you don’t think that you have the right the use guns to protect the most important thing in your life, your freedom and the freedom of your family to live free from government tyranny. So the Founding Fathers were traitors for resisting the crown, please If a black suit comes to your door and tries to invade your home I hope you have the courage to stop them, otherwise you are just as useless as the man who wrote this hypocritical article, just another “progressive” who will attack your neighbors for wanting to defend their freedom but you will gladly let the government rape your wallet and liberty because you think they have the authority to do so.

  • deannawoods

    According to a recent study of 323 resistance movements from 1900 to 2006, “non-violent campaigns of civil resistance (including protests, strikes and boycotts) succeeded 53% of the time, but violent campaigns only 26%” (Ignatius, Wash Post, 8/12/13). The far right haven’t checked the facts for their proposals for insurrection, clearly.

    • Schmoozy

      Actually they have. That is considered a last resort. That is why there have been rallies and protests. Apparently you need to fact check some more. That would never be considered the first course of action.

      • deannawoods

        Notably, the protests here that I believe you are referencing have represented a minority, and the study, which is very worthwhile, indicates that change comes most effectively when the movement becomes the voice of the majority. In the US, the Tea Party, for example, represents the minority. The majority re-elected the current president. Congress’ approval ratings are lower than the president’s by about ten to forty-eight. Non-violence alone will not solve any problem, of course, but the indication is that it more easily wins the support of the majority. One challenge of violence is that it appeals more to the amygdala than the frontal cortex. Problem-solving that lasts come best through caring, collaboration, and clear thinking.

    • Ronald Green

      Says another lily liver’ed liberal, but really who is advocating Insurrection as the only method of redress? Or is it you’re so afraid of the unknown, you’re making things up?

      • deannawoods

        I provided the source, so any reader can check for himself, or herself. The article referencing the study appeared in today’s Oregonian, but appeared originally in the Post. Are readers to assume you prefer violence? This study simply affirms what has proven most effective over time. I believe that wisdom calls for the most effective strategies for change, and I appreciate the value of solid research in helping identify the strategies.

      • Ronald Green

        You didn’t answer the question, you just ‘assumed’ which is never a good idea.

      • deannawoods

        What question was left unanswered?

      • Ronald Green

        Who is advocating Insurrection as the only method of redress?

      • deannawoods

        Sorry. I did miss that. I am on this small tablet, which is old and a challenge to manage. To my knowledge, none, though unfortunately too many talk of such…like the man who proposed bringing ten thousand armed citizens to DC, then later called it off and urged armed masses to converge on their state capitols instead, to force their will on the legislators. I read widely, all sorts of materials and views, and I grow concerned when a few choose violence as a first step, as some are doing in fact. Violent talk too often leads to violent action.

      • Ronald Green

        Peaceful demonstration, even with unloaded firearms, is not armed insurrection. Most of the demonstrations did occur in most State Capitals and not a single person was shot, so what is the problem?

    • Joe Patriot

      it’s you liberals who are always talking about violent insurrection, trying to instill fear in the moderates. Just because a person is preparing to defend himself doesn’t mean he advocates violence.

      • deannawoods

        Violence in defense would appear reasonable in some cases, as when a person or group is under physical attack. In a democracy, the ideal includes processes for change that means violence is a very last resort, when those processes are absolutely not functioning. And sometimes even then, as with the cases of ML King, or Ghandi. Even Christ did not advocate the overthrow of Rome. Preparing a violent defense when there is no immediate threat sends a curious message. In a society of our size and diversity, when so few of us know each other and our motives, a strange man or woman with a gun raises fear regardless of what the carrier may actually intend–as Newtown, the Colorado theatergoers, and coffedrinkers in a Washington Starbucks experienced.

      • Will

        Well that just goes to show you that most of you don’t even know our system of government. We have a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy.

  • redc1c4

    i saw a movie once where only the police & the military had firearms.

    it was titled “Schindler’s List”.

  • Parrish Quick

    Hmm…where to start with your litany of errors. First of all in order to be a traitor you have to take an oath or make an affirmation to this country. Probably something you wouldn’t know anything about. Seeing how the liberal progressive left and the ACLU are removing the pledge of allegiance from schools that would make your claim false….at least in the near future. And yes any self respecting American who served in the military or in public service worth their salt would step up and “DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION” (as originally written) because the of OATH they took and because they believe in it, have read it, and have given time, sweat, blood, and life for it. Do not think otherwise! Secondly I would question how many of the founding documents you have actually read because the Declaration of Independence quite specifically states the contrary of your position. “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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
    Governments long established should not be changed for light and
    transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
    mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
    right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
    same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
    it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
    to provide new Guards for their future security.” See there? That last sentence? It says “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”, so No they are not traitors. Be careful what you wish for!

  • Al

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

  • Gandalf

    The one thing that these right-wing nutjobs don’t seem to understand is that attempting to overthrow the government is an open invitation for anyone who hates the United States (such as Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations) to come on over and wreak havoc.

    If the overthrow was successful, then what do you think would happen? The new regime would have to structure itself and begin the process of analyzing the information that was left behind by the previous regime, if any such information survived. This information would of course be vital to protect ourselves from terrorists or foreign powers bent on influencing our country. Elections would have to be planned and held if we wanted to remain a democratic republic; otherwise, we’d simply turn into a totalitarian state with a dictator or otherwise unaccountable person(s) in command.

    In essence, if a group of people attempted to overthrow the government, then they would be the cause of our eventual destruction, especially if they succeeded. I’m sure everyone’s aware of this, but it bears mentioning: the government does a *lot* more than what you see on the news. I wish luck to anyone who wants to completely scrap our government and start completely from scratch, because they will most certainly need it.

    Finally, if anyone thinks that terrorist organizations or other people who have a vested interest in a weakened United States won’t take advantage of a domestic conflict, then you’re much too naive for your own good.

    • Ronald Green

      Calling people names will win your argument every time won’t it? You just made you whole point invalid by leading with an insult, but that’s par for the course when dealing with liberals.

      • Gandalf

        I am referring to a specific group of people rather than attacking an entire ideology that I don’t agree with. You, however, enjoy using blanket statements to skirt around debating the merits of someone else’s argument.

        If I wanted to take a leaf from your book, I would have simply said “idiot Conservatives” as a blanket statement calling all Conservatives idiots. However, I don’t believe that all Conservatives are lacking intelligence, and have made that clear by using a generally recognizable term that references those on the fringes of the far right. It seems apparent that you have either never encountered that particular term before, that you have failed to draw an association between the term and what it generally represents, or that you are being intentionally ignorant in order to avoid arguing against the points I have raised.

        Do you care to try again?

      • Will

        So do you not think that downsizing our military is actually making us appear weaker? They already see us as weak. We have already undercut the military almost to below what we had before WW2.

      • Gandalf

        The problem with our military spending is that much of it is going to waste. There are many programs and R&D costs that are being unnecessarily incurred, but bureaucrats refuse to fix this because all they really care about is seeing a large dollar amount being appropriated to defense.

      • Ronald Green

        It isn’t ‘bureaucrats, it’s mostly Democrat Congress people. Take tank production for one example. the Army and Marines don’t need or want more new tanks but we keep building them. Why? Because the plants that build the parts and the plant that assemble them are in Democrat and heavily unionized States. that help?

      • Gandalf

        That is exactly the problem that I was referring to, and that’s not specifically a Democrat-created problem; Republicans share just as much blame. The Democrats want to gut defense spending without cutting funding to tank production (and other similar costs), while Republicans want to maintain or increase defense spending and keep the appropriation of funding the same (or somewhat the same as it is now). Neither side is fighting for actual reform in the funding, which is what we need most of all, and in that both sides are equally responsible.

      • Ronald Green

        I will grant you that. Neither is innocent in all this. They are two sides to the same coin. Never confuse a Conservative with a Republican. They often vote Republican, but that is often only because there is no sane alternative.

      • Gandalf

        That is a problem with both parties. Liberals are not necessarily Democrats, but Democrats more often line up with their principles and therefore get their vote. A third party would be ideal, but our political system and the “us or them” mentality that many Americans have makes it prohibitively improbable that a third party will ever be a viable option.

      • Ronald Green

        Read my post boyo. I didn’t call you anything. I stated that you made your point invalid because of your insolence. So to further compound your lack of self awareness you continue with your liberal insults and put downs. Your point is invalid because you are an insulting liberal who has no argument outside of your insults. Feel better now?

      • Gandalf

        You have repeatedly attacked liberal ideology by throwing blanket statements throughout the comments section of this article. I never claimed that you personally insulted me by calling me a name; I only stated that you have been using blanket statements to insult an opposing political viewpoint.

        You still have not actually addressed my points. You’ve only continued to sidestep everything and resort to ad hominem to avoid actually arguing against my content. In my original post, I used exactly one insulting term, and the rest is logical argument. In your response, you simply disregarded the entirety of my post on an irrelevant portion that had absolutely nothing to do with my argument. If you were really that concerned about me using one insulting phrase, then you would not have started many of your replies in this comment section with an equally (or greater) insult.

        It’s obvious to me that you do agree with what I’m saying, but you can’t bring yourself to admit it. It is of no consequence, because everything that I stated in my original post is a highly likely result of an armed revolt against our government. If you wish to continue this argument, then I suggest you argue against those points rather than whether I insulted you or not and throwing insults of your own at me.

        Then again, if you feel like you need to continue asserting your perceived superiority over me, then by all means carry on.

      • Ronald Green

        Your point is all hypothetical supposition. Most of the world would be holding it’s breath hoping some damned fool on either side didn’t fire a nuke. Also, most of us think that there is nothing wrong with our form of government and would want to get back to new elections as quickly as possible. However, if the left keeps pushing the country toward a tyrannical socialist government and it attempts to set aside the Constitution, the Left will have pushed this country into war. If that happens, there is no telling what will come after it is over with any certainty. Do you really wish to push the country in that direction?

      • Gandalf

        I have no desire for any such thing to happen. However, I don’t think that much of what’s happened in the past five years can be defined as a push toward a tyrannical socialist government. Sure, the NSA scandal and the desire by the Democratic party to pass tighter gun control legislation is a little on the fence, but it’s important to keep in mind that many prominent Republicans and Conservatives support the NSA’s programs and that the main focus of Democrats with respect to gun control is to close loopholes and enforce background checks. There are some Democrats that want to go further and ban specific weapons, but they don’t have nearly as much support as those that advocate stronger background checks only.

        If you ignore the desires by the left-wing nutjobs to completely abolish the second amendment or make guns otherwise impossible to own by civilians, and focus only on the moderate Democrats that actually do have the support of the majority of their base, then you’ll see that they’re mostly for expanding the freedoms of American citizens. The Democratic party in general has led the push for gay rights, minority rights, women’s rights, and reproductive rights. Of course, this is not exclusive to only the Democratic party, and there are good number of Republicans and Conservative individuals that support these things. However, the elected representatives who support and/or have tried to draft legislation regarding these things are more often than not Democrats.

        Really, both parties fight for freedom. It’s just that both parties fight for different freedoms. Both ideologies stress different ideas of what freedoms American citizens (and people in general) should be granted. Neither side is completely right; in reality, we should be pursuing a blend of both ideologies and aim toward the center. We need to drop the extremism on both sides and find a way to grant everyone the freedoms they deserve.

      • Ronald Green

        The problem with your core argument is that those middle of the road types usually aren’t the leaders and too often in human history, it’s the nutjobs that lead and create the most havoc. In our case right now, it’s the left wing ‘nutjobs’ doing most of the leading for the Democrat party. The Republican party hasn’t hashed out who is actually leading them right now. So… the push towards that ‘Socialist utopia’. has gained too much ground and a lot of Americans don’t want to go there.

  • Joe Skonecki III

    It is idiotic to think that the Same Founders of our Nation that over threw King George and the British army. The same founders that stated in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. “”””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””””
    British army
    So you think Independence is just given freely by people put in power? Are you stupid? Seriously? Since the beginning of time Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

    This is absolutely clear that no one can completely understand the Constitution of the United states if they do not know The Declaration of Independence and the History behind it!!!!

    You are a brain washed idiot that is leading the USA into a false sense of security!

    Washington DC is as corrupt as it gets!

    Here is just a simple reason.
    INFLATION:
    The government prints money and drives down the power of the dollar.
    This prevents people from saving money, because if they do it will be significantly worth less in the future. So the only other way to make sure your savings keeps up with the Washington DC forced inflation problem is if you invest it! If you invest in anything that has gains you are taxed on it!

    So you get taxed through inflation of about 4% a year on your dollar. Meaning your hourly income is worth 4% less every year. If you invest in lets say the stock market and it only has a return of 4%. You are taxed on the 4%. So you can not even keep up with inflation. To include:Keep in mind you have to make more money every year just to keep the same living, and then you are taxed even more (the more you make)!

    And you think the Government is going to take care of you inevitably!
    YOU IDIOT! The proof is it keeps getting worse! So, if it keeps getting worse then your legacy will be that you have left future generations in poverty and unable to defend them selves against a worse system of Government than we have today!

  • USAF 321 Predator

    I would like to say on behalf of us who serve and served that my brothers took the same oath as I did. We fight for those rights that most of you liberals are fighting to take away. I side with the Constitution, and I will protect it from enemies foreign and domestic. Our military is downsizing and our enemies flourishing, so hold your weapons close and your families closer because you are your last defense when our dwindling defenses fail.

    • Sythan

      Liberals fought for the rights of women, black people, labor, children, and are currently fighting for the rights of gay people. What rights to liberals want to take away?

      • Will

        So is Democrat and Liberal the same thing? The last time I checked it was mainly Democrats that started the KKK. So, how did that help with the rights for blacks?

      • Gandalf

        That was the Dixiecrats, who switched to the Republican party during the Republican’s southern strategy. Really, the Democrats and Republicans swapped many political ideologies around 50 years ago.

      • Sythan

        The Democrats Party isn’t liberal. They’re center-right conservative. Although many liberals belong to the party, the party itself maintains a center-right political platform.

      • Ronald Green

        Are we talking about the same Democrat Party? This is the Party that denied God in their convention, that has embraced wealth redistribution as policy and they are right of center? I think you are mightily confused.

      • Sythan

        The Democratic Party didn’t “deny” God, last I checked, he was in the convention and even had the Catholic ass-hat Timothy Dolan give a prayer. Where does the Democratic Platform embrace wealth redistribution?

      • Ronald Green

        I guess you missed all that, or ignored it more likely.

      • Sythan

        Or you could just give me facts instead of the idiotic dribble.

      • Ronald Green

        Okay seeing how you need an idiot’s recitation so you can understand it. Three votes to include an affirmation of God in their platform, Each attempt voted down by the floor membership. The Chairman then simply declared it passed and included, to which the floor membership loudly disapproved with raucous ‘boos’ that went on for several minutes. And your comment about that catholic ‘a$$hat’ says a bit about you. Ever increasing taxes on the ‘rich’ to give to layabouts for votes sounds a lot like wealth redistribution to me. And your boy has publicly indorsed these things.

      • Sythan

        I suppose my comment does say a bit about me, it says I hate people who hide child molesters. Is tax increases for social programs specifically in the Democratic Platform? My boy? I’m not of the Democratic-ilk, but thank you for displaying an amount of stupidity rarely seen.

      • Ronald Green

        The only stupidity displayed here has been yours. Dodging and projecting and making all sorts of “I’m so superior’ statements. Get a grip.

      • Van A. Henson

        Yeah, riight again, Sythan. You just keep drinking that Kool-aid.

      • USAF 321 Predator

        Take a look at Amendments 1,2,4,5,10. you know, the ones being torn apart, tell me that liberals aren’t responsible for any of that. When the time comes and all those “women, black people, labor, children, and gay people” as well as the rest of America can’t defend themselves from ANYTHING let’s hope they haven’t outlawed prayer, because everyone will most definitely be needing it.

  • jaysmack

    once our government became a tyranny that was when we should rise up and many can see we are heading that way with obama worship. we are not there yet but if liberals do get their utopian socialist oppressive nightmare that has successfully destroyed our rights (like many liberals want) then we should rise up against a tyranny.

    • Sythan

      American liberals are capitalists, not socialists. They want to keep the capitalist system, last time I checked, socialists do not. Also, last time I checked, liberals fought for more rights for people (i.e. Women’s rights, the right to vote, the right to clean air and water, Gay rights), not take them away like you claim.

      • Van A. Henson

        Yeah, riiight. Keep drinking the kool-aid Sythan.

  • Jack

    What they believe is that they will rise up, and every military commander will join them.

    • Ronald Green

      No, what we believe is that a large portion of the military will be on our side. Oh and BTW, I speak form some experience on this. Which you obviously do not.

      • Will

        Ronald Green, most of them will. I also know from experience, every soldier in the Army is a leader. We can do things right without a commander if need be.

  • Yoseph

    It is idiotic to think that the Same Founders of our Nation that over threw King George and the British army. The same founders that stated in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. “”””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””””

    So you think Independence is just given freely by people put in power? Are you stupid? Seriously? Since the beginning of time Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

    This is absolutely clear that no one can completely understand the Constitution of the United states if they do not know The Declaration of Independence and the History behind it!!!!

    You are a brain washed idiot that is leading the USA into a false sense of security!

    Washington DC is as corrupt as it gets!

    Here is just a simple reason.
    INFLATION:
    The government prints money and drives down the power of the dollar.
    This prevents people from saving money, because if they do it will be significantly worth less in the future. So the only other way to make sure your savings keeps up with the Washington DC forced inflation problem is if you invest it! If you invest in anything that has gains you are taxed on it!

    So you get taxed through inflation of about 4% a year on your dollar. Meaning your hourly income is worth 4% less every year. If you invest in lets say the stock market and it only has a return of 4%. You are taxed on the 4%. So you can not even keep up with inflation. To include:Keep in mind you have to make more money every year just to keep the same living, and then you are taxed even more (the more you make)!

    And you think the Government is going to take care of you inevitably!
    YOU IDIOT! The proof is it keeps getting worse! So, if it keeps getting worse then your legacy will be that you have left future generations in poverty and unable to defend them selves against a worse system of Government than we have today!

  • Fred

    The Confederacy was a separate nation, it was not treason. The North was deliberately provoking the South into war, Not to mention the South almost won the war if it wasn’t a tragic tactical mistake on July 3 1863 that put the South into a retreat. Im also not sure where “a much less powerful army” is something to be said about the U.S at the time of the civil war. There is no historical source I am aware of that would suggest the U.S had a weak military at the time.
    This must be a troll Article, as you seem to ignore founding documents that quite literally explain the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. George Washington was a traitor yes. As would be any citizen fighting against the U.S. None of that matters. That is what the article doesn’t seem to get. The purpose of overthrowing the government is because that being a traitor and possibly dying a free man is more important then living as a subject or slave of some government that no longer works in the best interests of its own people. .That is the natural law of things. Having the citizenry well armed, makes the force of government against its own people that much more difficult knowing that their police could be easily killed enforcing laws. Which means that cops, who actually care about their communities will not do enforce something that would likely provoke the citizenry into violent action. Like say.. arbitrarily banning their property and going door to door confiscating it. Good luck enforcing that one in nowhereville Missouri.

    Article 3 no longer applies when Artcles 1,2, etc. also don’t matter. Hence the government has bigger issues to worry about. Like say, a 2nd Civil war.

  • thirdoption

    While I find the idea of revolution laughable I’ll take a moment to educate:

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
    the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
    Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
    Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    “the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
    — Thomas Jefferson

    “The right of a nation to kill a tyrant,
    in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or
    kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless
    the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and
    support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the
    one, the few, and the many.”
    — John Adams

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the
    highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin”
    — Samuel Adams

    Seems to me that they thought you are wrong. I can do this all day. You’re welcome.

    PS – to the person below who seems to think that there aren’t those behind a badge or those in service of this country who wouldn’t join the citizenry, you’re wrong. Just another point of fact.

  • Scott

    Technically on the “Left” here but know that the Constitution was written with the Declaration in mind. The Declaration states “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.” The Second Amendment backs this up with “…being necessary to the security of a free State…”. This is the bases for the argument of why the Second Amendment is in place. The Second Amendment is saying that in order to keep a free state either defending from enemies or stopping the Government from over stepping it’s bounds. The author of this article is a moron who needs a refund on his degree.

  • TBK Revolution

    What a load of propaganda

  • TBK Revolution

    Lefties everywhere, rejoicing over their own enslavement, and mocking those who want people to live free from tyranny

  • TBK Revolution

    I can just see some of these lefties back in 1930’s Germany. “Oh you think you’re going to overthrow the Nazi Party? That makes you a traitor! They’re going to send us to the gas chambers and there’s nothing you can do about it so just deal with it!”

  • hawk44b

    Obviously the “progressive” that wrote this article has never read the Federalists papers, if he had, he would have read their intent in the 2nd amendment.

  • Tristan Chris Heiss

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…. you just described your illegal alien criminally occupying the oval office.. and the rest of the article well describes the extent of your mental illness. and remember this those who support the illegal alien criminally occupying the oval offcie are complicit with him in his crimes. you voted for this criminal ..you are complicit. and 70% of america is armed as per the Constitutions law. the rest are wayout numbered. at least Hitler had a majority.. you dont even total a full third of the population.

    • Sythan

      …..you do realize that Hitler was never elected, right? He was appointed. The government at the time could not form a coalition without the Nazi Party, and Hitler refused the Vice-Chancellor position, and political situation grew worse and he was finally offered the position of Chancellor. The Nazi Party only got 18.3% of the vote in that election.

      European political parties do not vote for people, they vote for parties who then decide what people within their party will fulfill what positions.

  • YouHanoiMe

    The nutjob variety of American gun owners are looking for any excuse to mow down U.S. citizens using assault weaponry, including high capacity clips. Ask any reasonable female in their family, and I guarantee the woman will disagree they need to own the type or number of firearms that they do. Oh boy, these “well regulated” militia are going to want to mow me down because I called it a “clip!”

    • Ronald Green

      No, we won’t ‘mow’ you down, we’ll just laugh at your ignorance.

      • YouHanoiMe

        You should legally have your last name changed to Paul. You believe in conspiracies, racism, anarchy, no gun safety, allowing the dangerous and the crazy to buy machine guns, and you would probably bayonet a toddler just for waving an American flag that isn’t turned upside down.

      • Ronald Green

        You really don’t have any idea what I believe in so why don’t you do us all a favor and drop dead.

      • YouHanoiMe

        Your finger is itching for the trigger. If someone knocks on your door and you don’t know who they are, you are already aiming at them. You would fire away anyway whether there was truly a need for deadly force or not, so long as you could hide behind “fearing for your life.” You are nothing but bloodthirsty at the expense of U.S. Citizens, U.S. permanent residents, and human beings in general.

      • Ronald Green

        You really are one stupid liberal troll aren’t you. Got anything of substance to add or do you just run your mouth and spout inane nonsense?

    • Will

      My wife says that she even wants a few AR15’s. The reason is she can shoot it better than my shotgun. By the way “Assault Weapon” is nomenclature used to elicit an emotional response. It is a word to just cause fear and panic. Obviously, the word works with you because you sound either like a tough guy on the Internet type or you are really scared of the semi-automatic rifles. Yes you are right they are not called clips, they are called magazines. I load my M1 Garand with an en-bloc clip.

      • YouHanoiMe

        I write these messages to get a rise out of conspiracy people who hate the government. I actually respect your calm response! You and your wife do sound like the type of honest people who are responsible gun owners.

  • fredrick

    “or in adhering to their Enemies” – guess obama is a traitor by whoever wrote this owns logic. seeing as how hes aiding enemys.

    • fredrick

      “or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” sorry didnt copy all the way

  • John Hackett

    The second amendment insures that the government does not try to enslave the American people. The government has a Consatitution that guides what We the people allow them to do….if they over reach, we can check them if we have to and keep them on coarse. Too bad the German paople did not have the means to check Hitler…it would have saved many lives.

  • OathSwornToDefend

    Article 3 is specific to aiding and abetting enemy military forces during a time of war. A quick lesson in federal civics: The United States government is not now, nor ever has been, or ever shall be, sovereign. The United States Constitution has always been, and will continue to ever be, Sovereign. To be a sovereign citizen of this nation, it is required that soldiers and public servants swear an oath to that Sovereignty, the Constitution. You do not now, nor ever shall, swear oaths to politicians, political parties, or special interest groups, corporations, or ideologies that are in direct contravention to the Letter of that Sovereignty. The very simple reason for the way the Founding Fathers set this up is because they, even then, know the hearts, and the minds, of humanity.

  • noparty

    this article begins with a “straw man” argument, continues with a false premise; the legal definition of “Levying war” is wrong, and continues with extraordinary claims as to why we have been given the right to bear arms without any supporting evidence. The author has poor understanding of how the modern military works and concludes with the same misinterpretation of “levying war”. I’m sure he was trying to make a point somewhere there but it’s hard to tell distracted by all the poor logic and reasoning.

  • ben_b

    How would guns give you the right to do anything? If you wanted the title to make any sense it would need to be reversed. “So, you think your right to overthrow the government gives you the right to own guns?”

  • ben_b

    How is that whole voting thing working out for you? Last I check the peace and civil liberties candidate has won the last two elections and yet we get more wars and more pissing on our civil liberties.

  • Will

    If this Allan Clifton is really from Texas and doesn’t like it why doesn’t he leave? I mean you have California and New York that would willingly accept him. Hell, even Chicago would love him there, he would love it to. There isn’t many churches there, conceal carry is in it’s infancy and hard as hell to get not to mention a lot of regulations added on. No open carry, Assault Weapons Ban, gun free zones everywhere, police that have a reasonable 28 minute response time, and the great thing is there was only 500 murders last year and it is only increasing slightly this year. I mean Texas has less but he doesn’t like it there and just trying to point out a better area for him.

  • Rolando Prieto

    It is better to know a single fault with in yourself, then to know a thousand in some one else. Focus on how to better your own mind, rather then generalizing and believing you know what is in the minds of others. This is more for the comments than the actual article. As for the article, yes the Second Amendment was written in order to defend against a corrupt tyranical government. How could any one believe that this is not the primary purpose of the Second Amendment, considering they had just finished fighting off the corrupt tyranical government they were living with? This article is full of generalizations and stereotypes. It seems the attempt is to deamonize knowlegeable citizens who know their rights, and want to maintain their right to defend themselves. As for Article Three, the founding fathers understood that America is an idea which is safe guarded via the Constitution. When this idea ceases to exist America ceases to exist. Hence they were reffering to America governed by the Constitution. I know this very well being an Army Veteran. I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. If your interpretation of Article Three is correct, then this would imply all military personel are traitors as well.

    • Van A. Henson

      Very good point, Sah.

  • mickeysix

    The second amendment categorically does NOT encourage armed rebuttal against the government, no matter what the TV people say. That’s the first amendment’s job: specifically the part about petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

    Funny how so many people who think they’re constitutional scholars love to omit that part.

    • Will

      You do know all the rights in the First Amendment right? There is more than one.

    • Van A. Henson

      Excuse me Mickeysix, might I point out that the Patriots that became Traitors in 1776 had been exercising their right to petition the Government for redress of grievances for many years and finally decided that it was necessary to use their Arms to that end.

  • Marc

    *** “That’s why they gave us the form of government they did. Our
    elected
    officials are elected officials so that if they become corrupt
    we can vote them out of office. It’s why each term is given a limited
    number of years. That’s how we were given the power to “overthrow” our
    government. If we believe our officials aren’t representing our best
    interests, vote them out of office.” ***

    True, and that system HAS worked very well. Thus far.

    But what happens if/when it STOPS working?

    How exactly do you propose that free, law abiding American people will
    ‘fix it’ if some future leader/set of leaders/dominating party decides
    we’re not going to use that system anymore. That the Constitution/Bill
    of Rights doesn’t apply anymore? And this party I speak of could be
    Republican, Democrat or otherwise as well, I’m not siding with/saying
    one is any better than the other.

    ANYONE is capable of becoming tyrannical. One need not only look at
    Hitler, Stalin, Castro or Chairman Mao for this. The Japanese-American
    internment (concentration) camps, police firearm confiscation during
    Hurricane Katrina and even the recent IRS targeting/phone records/NSA
    scandals come to mind as to the potential for government overreach/abuse
    of power right here in the good old U.S.

    Yes, THAT along with the individual right to self defense is what our
    2nd Amendment is for.

    If you don’t like firearms that is fine, it IS your right to not own
    them.

    Just as it is your right to speak publicly about not liking them on a
    forum such as this.

    And guess which right ultimately helps PROTECT that (1st Amendment)
    right?

    You guessed it, the 2nd Amendment. 😉

  • Publius

    You are all idiots…………and the Progressive movement is a cancer that will, some day, be cut away from American Society. Count on it…

  • Justin Myrick

    The U.S. Military has around 2.3 million members, active and reserve. You can be guaranteed that if the was insurrection MANY in the military would refuse to fire upon fellow U.S. citizens. Now, there are around 100 million gun owners in the U.S. So even if only a small percent of gun owners took up arms, in pure numbers it would be a pretty even fight. Of course many will say, “what good is an AR-15 against a rocket launcher/tank/apache helicopter?” implying that this insurrection would have no chance. Well, rebels in Afghanistan held of the Soviets for a decade, and now the U.S. military as well. And don’t even pretend we’ve “won” in Afghanistan. I’m not advocating an armed insurrection, no one in their right mind WANT to see that. But, acting like it would be a landslide shows real ignorance. Never underestimate people who actually have something to fight for.

    • robertsgunshop

      Not to mention, all of those planes and tanks need support personnel. You know, the guys and gals that do the fueling and loading. That pretty, multi-million jet fighter is a useless hunk of scrap without fuel and weapons.

    • mike

      How about the fact of what is going on within the military and the p c training soldiers have to go through to deal with muslims while their Christian faith is being trampled on. If anything they might be a part of the insurrection despite all the military leaders that are getting fired or blackmailed into submission. Assumption is the mother of all F… ups.

  • alfondso Tisserand

    “Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

    • mike

      The British called the revolutionaries traitors. I guess the victor will write the history.

  • Marc

    *** “That’s why they gave us the form of government they did. Our
    elected
    officials are elected officials so that if they become corrupt
    we can vote them out of office. It’s why each term is given a limited
    number of years. That’s how we were given the power to “overthrow” our
    government. If we believe our officials aren’t representing our best
    interests, vote them out of office.” ***

    True, and that system HAS worked very well. Thus far.

    But what happens if/when it STOPS working?

    How exactly do you propose that free, law abiding American people will
    ‘fix it’ if some future leader/set of leaders/dominating party decides
    we’re not going to use that system anymore. That the Constitution/Bill
    of Rights doesn’t apply anymore? And this party I speak of could be
    Republican, Democrat or otherwise as well, I’m not siding with/saying
    one is any better than the other.

    ANYONE is capable of becoming tyrannical. One need not only look at
    Hitler, Stalin, Castro or Chairman Mao for this. The Japanese-American
    internment (concentration) camps, police firearm confiscation during
    Hurricane Katrina and even the recent IRS targeting/phone records/NSA
    scandals come to mind as to the potential for government overreach/abuse
    of power right here in the good old U.S.

    Yes, THAT along with the individual right to self defense is what our
    2nd Amendment is for.

    If you don’t like firearms that is fine, it IS your right to not own
    them.

    Just as it is your right to speak publicly about not liking them on a
    forum such as this.

    And guess which right ultimately helps PROTECT that (1st Amendment)
    right?

    You guessed it, the 2nd Amendment. 😉

  • nick

    It is funny how even with a Democratic president everyone blames republicans for what is wrong with this country. Same thing with Chicago they are all complaining of schools closing down when they elected the guy that pulled the trigger on it. Don’t even get me started with Detroit. Long story short we are a Republic not a democracy. I really don’t care what your opinions are, I have my rights you have yours and if you don’t like the rights that I like, then you need to go home and get yourself a binky and whine about it until you fall asleep. For those of you who think the government would just “crush these patriots.” Look at your local Police Departments and ask yourself if they would really start killing other Americans. Then go down to your local National Guard Armory and ask the mechanics and mainly support units if they would kill Americans. I also encourage you to look up gorilla warfare. It’s not like all these “traitors” will just converge on one battle site to fight one battle to end all battles. So go about your day and just remember when you get stopped and frisked on a New York subway because its for “your own safety”, then you tell me if we have any of our freedoms we once had. I join you all to look up the Libertarian party. Also I wish I could sign in so I could read all the ridiculous responses to this, but I have no urge to sign up for this “educated” website. Good day.

    • LibertyDwells

      A Democrat president AND a Democrat Senate. AND both a Democrat House and Senate prior to Obama’s election. The Dems, the nominal “left”, have been in total or near total control for about 7 years and they are still crying how it’s the fault of the prior Admin.

      If one goes back to 2000 one might remember these are the same people who were blaming Bush for the recession even though he wasn’t in office yet. So back then? Repub fault from before day one(in the person of Bush). Today, Repub fault 7 years after the fact. Any rational person would see the absurdity.

      Here? Maybe not so much…

  • RabbitHRF

    Just Remember This! Hitler didn’t appoint himself, he was voted in……..
    End of story!

  • Dissenter13a

    All you would have needed to stop the Third Reich was one well-placed bullet.

  • Dissenter13a

    Once again, Allen, you should leave law to the legally trained. Insurrection may BE in defense of the Constitution. The Framers understood this well.

    • drstonesr1

      Hey idiot some of our framers were just farmers who actually came upo with some of the best parts of the Constitution including the part of Defending against a OVER POWERFUL Government as in it becoming Tyrannical.

  • Illumenatum

    Listen you know nothing dumbasses—Read the writings of the founding fathers re the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAT ARMS. Militias had been formed long before the Constitution was written, the first two battles leading to the War For Independence were fought because the British were trying to confiscate the firearms of the militia located at Lexington and Concord. Who were these militia members—every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 60. Why did the Founders insist on the Second Amendment—so that no tyrant could ever successfully usurp the Constitutional Rights of the citizens. Why do you think every totalitarian government disarms its people before enslaving them— they can’t afford an army of non-thinking robots large enough to overcome an determined armed population. Why have the strongest armies in the world over the past 2,300 years been unable to subdue the Afghan tribesmen —because they are all armed and will fight their enemies to the death. Just because you so called progressives are willing to sell your souls for a suck at the public teat, don’t kid yourselves that the hundreds of thousands of us military who swore an oath to “defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC” will meekly surrender our GOD given rights to the likes of you.

  • Galactic Hoosier

    The man that wrote this article is a dildo…..

  • Van A. Henson

    Levying War is not preparing for War but actually fighting it, so strike one.
    All of our founding fathers (including those involved in the drafting of our Constitution) were Patriots – Traitors – Patriots just as the people you are attacking would be if their fears come to pass, so strike two.
    The Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution does not grant any right it says that the Federal Government may not infringe on a God given right, so strike three! You’re OUT!

    So the Civil War is your case in point of how you expect some future potential revolt against a government that usurps the constitution to play out? Might I point out that the core of the Southern Army and the core of the Northern Army came from the same place. The U. S. Army before succession split during succession becoming both the USA and CSA. Also the South nearly won had it not been for their reluctance to invade the North they very well may have.

    Just as our founding fathers were not Traitors to the Crown before the signing of the Declaration of Independence (despite six previous letters to the Crown citing grievances) all the while stockpiling arms and munitions (in violation of Royal decree no less; as any law that violates God given rights is not a law to be obeyed), so the people exercising their God given right to keep and bear Arms while debating the possibility of one day having to fight against their own government are not traitors to the United States of America. And in the most often discussed scenario currently it wouldn’t be Armed Citizens vs the DOD but Armed Citizens vs DHS until DOD stepped in on the side of the Armed Citizens to restore Constitutional Government after an attempt to totally suspend the Constitution (a scenario I don’t foresee happening but then again the Germans didn’t foresee Hitler totally suspending their Constitution either).

  • John E. Conway

    A minor correction. There were no federal troops. IN fact the founding father feared the very idea of federal troops, and so did congress. The idea of a standing army was abhorrent to them and it took a very long time to convince them we needed one. One of our first attempts needed to be voted on every two years to keep going. That was the purpose of the second amendment, so that our citizen soldiers would remain armed and ready to protect this nation from all threats, both from within our own borders (native populations and border disputes) and with foreign nations.

  • tinkerbellming

    I highly suggest you take the Hillsdale College online courses (1) Introduction to the Constitution, (2) Constitution 101, and (3) Constitution 201.

  • Cakeblast

    Levying war means to declare or wage war. Individuals that prepare for a war that may may or may not be levied against them are NOT levying war, so the aka in your last paragraph is a misrepresentation. You are making up new meanings to one part of the Constitution in order to convince people that other parts of the Constitution are irrelevant. That is traitorous in my opinion.

  • Picky Wassah

    Like a good communist. Only take an half truth and make it a fact. The whole thing reads….Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
    By been giving money and supporting the enemy,,ie..anybody that is part of the muslin brotherhood…it is a treason to USA and should be treated as a terrorist…
    Stop confusing, brainwashing and changing history for you own benefit…if you love to be a gun free zone garbage troll…go to Cuba…they have and free health care… good luck idiot!

  • Illumenatum

    The democrat party is once again the party of slavery. Cleverly, they prey upon the ignorant, the poor, the depressed much like a pimp preys upon the runaway teens he wishes to drag into prostitution. The democrat pimp party doesn’t want just the current body. Like the slave owner of old, he is counting on the ownership of generations of offspring being trapped on the government plantation. Sign up for food stamps! They aren’t just for people that need them —rich people owe you that because they are rich and you’re not. We will tax those nasty old business owners and buy you an obummerphone. If you already have one we’ll get you two more. Don’t look for work, fool. We will fix it so you can draw money for nothing for 99 weeks or more. You don’t even have to pretend to look for work to draw that money either. Don’t believe in God, the democrat government is the only god you need. Don’t get married, fool. If you knock up your gal she’ll just draw more money as a single out of work mother. It ain’t slavery, man ’cause you’re getting money. It ain’t like its coming out of your pocket ’cause you don’t have to pay any taxes. Just keep voting democrat and everything is gonna be free so long as those damn rich folks keep letting us take their money to buy you folks. LBJ and his fellow slavers started buying your souls back in 1965 with his “War on Poverty” and my how your ranks have grown. Twice as many in poverty now and obummer is doubling down. Keep voting democrat, pretty soon you’ll be as rich as any Mexican peon.

  • LibertyDwells

    There are no stories about slave state compromise. That’s a recent fantasy that seems to have gained leftist cult status thx to Thom Hartmann. OTOH, even a limited amount of research shows where the real effort at suppression came from: Democrat efforts to deny former slaves firearms after the Civil War.

    The rest of this silly article is predicated on the erroneous presumptions “the government” is a static creation that was the same then and now and that “the government” is also synonymous with “The United States”. Of course the current government is, does, and has for decades exceeded any form of constitutional validity and/or similarity to the federal government as constituted originally.

    It’s sad that in the never ending effort to convince itself of legitimacy the left will spin such tails and tell itself such lies. Far better to simply accept your errors, acknowledge your ignorance and “progress” into a more rational world.

    • LibertyDwells

      It’s worth noting that the same over-arching leftist policy that pretends the Constitution is a living document(purely to serve their own political and social agenda) pretends federal government is a fixed point that is as legitimate today as it was then regardless of what expansion or abuse it engages in. Wildly hypocritical but, possibly, the same “logic” that let’s them ignore anything the current regime does while they would be screaming for blood if it were a Repub’ Administration.

  • Picky Wassah

    USA is today what it is Thanks to the brave men that use their guns to overthrown the UK…but let me ask this…is the a UK page that it is still hurt about loosing a war with a bunch of terrorist?

  • RetSquid

    Too bad this article is based on a bad definition.

    “…there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.”–Chief Justice Marshall Ex parte Bollman,

  • Oodsigma

    You people do realize that European right wing and left wing are completely different than American right wing and left wing? In Europe, it essentially means what side of the room you sit on. Political groups sit together. In the US, at the far left is total government control. On the far right is anarchy with no government at all. This country was founded as right of center. Minimal government with minimal control over peoples lives. We are now well left of center with government sticking its nose in everywhere and taxing everything up to and including rainwater.

  • Political Smackdown

    this story is a joke

  • The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is well established in the Federalist Papers and your cute little posting exemplifies the Liberals’ mindset, a mindset devoid of reality, devoid of history, and scared to death that ‘We The People’ are going to take this country back from Obama–Obama the most unAmerican freedom hating piece of sh.. to ever walk through the doors of the White House. Just get a grip on that and you will feel better.

  • Tim1985

    I suppose Thomas Jefferson who WROTE the Constitution was a “Traitor” as well according to your “Progressive” logic. Here’s just a few quotes from him and his views of why gun ownership needed to be a paramount right guaranteed to all free men in our new Nation.

    “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion
    for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private
    self-defense.”
    -Thomas Jefferson:

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
    bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
    government.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands.”

    -Thomas Jefferson

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they
    are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
    enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and
    constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”-Noah Webster, 1787

    “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion
    for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private
    self-defense.”-John Adams

    Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, John Adams….these names sound familiar? Do you think they too were traitors? According to your logic, their advocating citizens to keep, bear and store arms against possible tyranny means they’re advocating “levying war” against the Government.

    I appreciate the fact that anyone these days can start a blog on the internet to push their agenda but if you want to be taken seriously, you really ought to do a little more research and present your points in a manner not so easily disproved as ludicrous.

    • Van A. Henson

      One minor correction, Thomas Jefferson was one of the writers of the Declaration of Independence but was out of the country when the Constitution was drafted. Later as president he wrote a letter to a church to assure them that the Federal Government would never interfere with their religious actions that contained a line that the left have since taken totally out of context and even gone so far as to try to say is in the Constitution (kind of like this article’s misuse of Article III). Meanwhile serving as President he was also serving as Head of the Washington, D.C. school district and required that all classrooms use two texts for instruction, the Bible and Watts’ Hymnal, totally debunking the position the Left wants to say he held by their use of the lifted line.

  • Tim

    The Dumb Ass that wrote this article above is a JOKE!!!! A degree in Political Science, HUH!! If that’s true then I to should have the same degree. Effective Dec, 15 1791 Article II states that ” In order to have a well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The key words in this article are, being necessary to the security of a free state. That’s not only talking about your freedoms in the state that you live in. That means a free STATE period. We ” Americans” are suppose to be FREE. If any citizen goes to mess with Article II, then you are messing with my Free State. Can not be infringed upon. There is nothing for us to discuss. Period…. Would you feel the same way about the Government wanting to make changes to your First, or Fourth, or you throw one in there. YES I am a Patriot, Yes I do own guns. I don’t go looking for trouble, but I am not afraid of it either. You DUMB ASSES keep believing that they only want to regulate Guns. We are not trying to wage War against the United States Of America. But, We DO REFUSE TO BE OVERRAN by a Tyrannical Government. Go ahead and keep writing that stupid shit. We will continue to ALWAYS defend our GOD GIVEN RIGHT to defend ourselves. Mr. Obompist is one of the reasons why our forfathers had enough SMARTS to put that in OUR Constitution. You have every right to speak your mind, but so do I. Don’t be a Dumb Ass all your life. Sorry, but you made it personal when you called me a traitor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Tim

    TJ You are really a DUMB ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • SoCalCop

    Wow, another example of failed public education.

  • Pman451

    Allen Clifton……I don’t care about “other countries” and their policies. You are part of the scum deteriorating the rights of “We the people.” Propaganda machines have historically destroyed the hope and dreams of good innocent people. The very fabric of our freedom has always been based upon the belief that armed citizens have the power to assemble against a tyrannical traitor/dictator that is not doing the will of the people, upholding the Constitution and or providing security for said persons in all forms including financially. You might want to talk to a few Veterans about the price they paid for your mouth! I served honorably for the good people of this country of which I realize you are not one of them. If you enjoy the freedoms of “other countries” so much and they are just fine, by all means feel “free” to move to one of them. You will beg to come back. You disgrace the memory of the Veterans that have fought and died for the preservation of human rights such as the right to vote and the second amendment. Do I think a bunch of groups of militia can over take a well trained military force in order to overthrow a tyrant? Absolutely not! However, a well armed population of citizens will deter any Dictator/Traitor from total power, you know the kind of guy you like and serve. You are so shallow and naive to be taken seriously by anyone with any credibility. You are a cancer to America! You don’t deserve the freedom afforded to you.

  • TheAuthorNeedsBalls

    You have a very ill understanding of the law. Perhaps it’s your failure to understand you’re a legal enemy of your own government to begin with. And that our Constitution is a restrainer to our government NOT us. It does not grant therefore it cannot take our rights as citizens.
    But you’re right it’s not our second amendment that ‘gives’ us the right to over throw our government. We possess that right no matter what. And when We The People decided we’ve all have enough of their treasonous actions they will be overthrown. Our second amendment just like our Constitution as a whole is just US making our rights clear to THEM. In this scenario against domestic tyranny. Where ever that might come from matters not. And will be death with accordingly.
    You can play semantics with the Constitution like so many treasonous politicians it will never change the facts. But you’re right about voting being our first step. However when and If that fails it is time to lock and load to remove them forcefully if necessary. And no I don’t mean when the person I would choose loses.
    It seems by your standards you want to just give them a free pass in whatever they feel like doing. Hey yeah just vote them out. That’s all well and great, however in the situation we are finding ourselves in that will not happen because of the absolute stupidity and gullibility coming from too many people stemming from exploitation and dependency, ultimately though exploitation.
    So If anyone here is a traitor it’s you, with your neutrality and surrender. Coupled with your clear desire to bend over for these clowns. Don’t drop the soap hommie.

  • Tony Dile

    In My Personal Opinion:

    First off this article is poop… Just because people build an “arsenal of weapons” does Not mean they are preparing to overthrow the government or ‘levying war”.
    Second, the one(s) Committing Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Is Our Government, who apparently feels it necessary to Give Money to countries that burn our Flag and have no love for our great nation.

    There aren’t as many folks willing to openly challenge a full Military Force as some would want to believe.

  • John Galt

    The Constitution provided the 2nd Amendment to defend against a “tyrannical government” which is exactly what we have today. (oppressive and controlling). What you idiots don’t get is, the people don’t want to overthrow the government, there is nothing wrong with the government itself. Its the assholes running it, the people who work for the corporations and globalists. They have financially and physically jeopardized the safety of every man, women and child on this planet. Being as most of you are leftists, i know you don’t comprehend what’s going on but those who are intelligent “Right Wing” know what is going on. All of you idiots who live in some alternate reality, “most of California”, you are going to find out soon just how tyrannical the government is. And you’ve had a Dem Pres for 4+ years, control of the House and Senate for 2 of those years, and control of Senate for the entire Obama Admin…. so don’t show your stupidity and blame Republicans or Bush. There is no Dem vs. Rep, its all staged BS… EVERY bill they ever introduced has passed from creation of the FED to NDAA, voted on and signed by, both parties.

  • Victor Gottlieb Haggy

    This argument is why I stay Independent. The corruption runs so deep in our Government, Not many people want to see it. The Republicans and Democrats have us all so divided, most of the people cant see straight. They use Lame Stream media to do it. Republicans think they are some power house The Democrats think their so progressive. Both are a complete Joke. So the thinking of both parties, using their philosophies and what they show us every day. We are a country of war mongers, baby killers, no longer God fearing, Racist. Hey that is the country we know and love. When We The People stop our bickering, and go back to what made this country great. The Constitution of these United States. We will all stay divided. Dems. against Rep. Black against white, Muslims against Christians. By the way. To the writer of this column. You should check your facts. 1. Term limits- Not all elected positions have term limits. They should But they don’t. 2. Yes the argument for the right to bear arms against a tyrannical Government is their. You actually have to go read the arguments for the 2nd amendment. Anyway! Good luck to us all.

  • KONSPIRACY911

    +8Rave
    2 Share

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
    same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
    it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
    to provide new Guards for their future security.” – Declaration of Independence, JULY 4, 1776

    • Donovan Jones

      well said!

  • Donovan Jones

    Wow, nothing like reading between lines to cover up the insanity that is currently in the white house now. And if you are going to quote the Constitution, it would be best to give an actual description, as opposed to just a vague reference. In perpetuity, Article III, Section 3 reads as this:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    You are right that as read, levying for war is considered a treasonable offense. And you hold this reasoning on futility, by bringing up the Civil War. Your view is that the south rose up to attack, but the reality is the north MARCHED against the south. They didn’t wait for the southerners to come north, no, they marched to battle. At what point is defending your way of life in a land of freedom, considered TREASON? When does it become self defense against tyranny? Now I am not going to sit here and debate the finer points of the war between the states, and the results of its end, I am merely pointing out that it depends on the individuals point of view. And speaking of treason, isn’t the POTUS giving aid to foreign nations, that actively HATE and plot destruction against our nation, be considered “adhering” to our enemies and giving them aid and comfort?

    Now, NOWHERE am I hearing a call to arms, to rise up against our government. Not even the most outspoken individuals are advocating actual armed rebellion. What I do hear, is preparation, and readying for the possible eventuality, that the government “war-machine” will come knocking on our doors. I don’t build my arsenal to march against the state, I build my arsenal to keep the state from marching against ME! So if you want to keep your head in the sand, and find excuses to call me a traitor, go ahead and knock yourself out. But if the time should arrive when REAL traitors start causing mayhem, don’t expect me feel sorry for you because the “kool-aide” lied to you.

  • Huntress

    The article 3 they mention is precisely the traitors that have illegally planted the present administration. Many appointments have placed these people not votes from citizens. It is also apparent that we are infiltrated by rich muslims that bribed their way into government positions. So no we are not traitors the infiltrators are traitors and need to be removed.

  • DroppinTruthBombz

    So, this guy cites Article Three of the Constitution, which says:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

    Meanwhile, the author ignores the fact that Article Three is directed at people seeking to undermine America to a Foreign power (Benedict Arnold anyone?). The author doesn’t mention that Second Amendment acknowledges that people need to defend their country and themselves from all enemies foreign and domestic and does not mention that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right of the People, not the Militia or any type of regulated Militia (nevermind the fact that the people comprise the Militia -_-) to keep and bear arms.

    The author also says this:

    “It seems pretty clear cut. That’s why they gave us the form of government they did. Our elected officials are elected officials so that if they become corrupt we can vote them out of office. It’s why each term is given a limited number of years. That’s how we were given the power to “overthrow” our government. If we believe our officials aren’t representing our best interests, vote them out of office. Believe it or not, not a single politician wins an election without getting votes from Americans.”

    Meanwhile, he ignores the Declaration of Independence, which states:

    “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…

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    -He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    -He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    -He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    -He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    -He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    -He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    -He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    -He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    -He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    -He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    -He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    -He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    -He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    -For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    -For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    -For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    -For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    -For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    -For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    -For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    -For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    -For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    -He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    -He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    -He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    -He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    -He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

    ^–oh yeah, totally non-seditious speech. Totally full of just “yeah bros, let’s just vote the tyrant out of office, easy peasy”.

    Tell me, why would you “appeal to the Supreme Judge of the World” if you were just changing leaders through voting? Why would you “publish and declare” that the American Colonies are “free and independent States” and “absolved from all allegiance” from the British Crown? Why would call for “all political connections” between Britain and the American Colonies to be “totally dissolved”? Why would you reference “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” and pledge your lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, if all you had to do was vote out the King?

    OH WAIT! YOU’RE SECEDING FROM A TYRANT! You’re not breaking up with your girlfriend or getting into a slight argument with your spouse. You’re cutting off economic and political ties with the most powerful country in the world. We declared independence. Remember when India declared independence from Britain? Remember when Israel was stood up? Yeah, sure wasn’t a big deal…

    The author also failes to address
    -John Locke’s Social Contract Theory, which took Thomas Hobbes’s views regarding government and the State of Nature that all men naturally find themselves in and took them one step further. By the way, for all you non-political science people, Locke was kind of a big deal to the Founding Fathers. Just saying.
    -English Common Law regarding Militias and the evolution of such thought
    -Quotes from the Founding Fathers regarding tyranny, firearms, and Liberty

    The author states:

    “The Second Amendment was written to give citizens the ability to form militias to defend against threats during a time in our country when the first line of defense on our borders was often the citizens who lived in those areas. We didn’t have a well organized military with fortified military bases all over our country. It took days (sometimes even weeks) to get federal troops to certain locations in our country, meaning we relied heavily on a “well regulated militia” to defend outlying areas that weren’t quickly reachable.”

    Except he fails to mention
    -You can’t even form a militia these days without being considered a traitor and infiltrated by the ATF, DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, so don’t tell me that you’re a traitor for believing 2A gives you the Right to overthrow tyranny, but you can just form a militia and not be considered a traitor.
    -The Militia Acts of 1792 sought to regulate the militia in terms of training and coordinating their ability to bring war to our enemies

    The author states:

    “After all, didn’t we see how this would go once before? Has anyone ever heard of the Civil War? How did armed citizens fare against the federal government in the late-1800′s? You know, back when citizens and the military were much more evenly armed, and our military was much less powerful.
    These people really think things would go better against the modern United States military? Also known as the most powerful war machine that’s ever existed.”

    Meanwhile, he ignores how long the Civil War went on (4 years), ignores the number of Union casualties (140,414) while the South only had 72,524, ignores how the South nearly WON, ignores military strategy as a whole, ignores History which has REPEATEDLY SHOWN smaller units can overcome larger units (American Revolution, WWII Resistance, Vietcong, Afghanistan [TWICE], Iraq insurgency, Syria), ignores/trivializes the fact that guns are useless, yet we’re sending them to Syria, ignores the fact the the American Revolution is what guarantees his ungrateful butthurt the Right to say what he is saying, ignores the length of the American Revolution, ignores the technological advantage American Colonial Pennsylvania/Kentucky Long Rifles had over the British Brown Bess, how George Washington uses Southern colonial snipers to devastating effect. Oh, and speaking of how superior the US military is compared to Americans armed with Colt 1911s, Glocks, AR15s, and AK47s….if those firearms are sooooooooo inferior to Stealth Bombers, Fighter Aircraft, Tanks, and Nuclear missiles, why are you so worried? Why are we sending them to Syria again? I mean, if the firearms are so inferior, then we should have Iraq and Afghanistan wrapped up in a few days, no problem.

    Oh wait! Pretty sure the misattributed quote
    “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass” holds water here. Oh, and tell me more about how Iraq and Afghanistan are such a cake walk for our troops. What’s the PTSD rate again?

    Yeah, real solid scholarship here. Revisionist History always fails and falls on its face.

    Just remember: Your Right to print misinformation about firearms, the US Constitution, Liberty, and American History…were secured by Patriots armed with the most advanced firearms of their times.

    Oh, and the comment

    “And the ironic part is most of those who believe in a possible “armed revolt against the United States government” are the same people who support the party which funnels hundreds of billions of dollars into our military defense budget—which is controlled by the federal government.”

    Yeah, we Conservatives support our national security. You know, kind of like how the “well-regulated Militia” does. I would argue there are FAR MORE Conservatives in the US Military (as most Military members now come from the Southern US States) that Liberals, and Conservatives recognize the value of National Defense, as well as the Second Amendment. So no, actually, it is quite consistent that Conservatives funnel money into our military budget, because we EXPECT that it is to be used against foreign enemies, not domestic ones. Should the need ever arise where it is used against the American people, I guarantee that MANY in the military would have a serious problem with that. Ever heard of OathKeepers? Yeah, good luck.

  • Don L Harned

    I think the author has a misunderstanding here. We would not be uprising against our country. We would be uprising against the corrupt government. Such as in this case to remove the treasonous Obama regime to preserve our country and constitution.

  • Don L Harned

    As Ronald Reagen said ‘The liberals know so much that just isn’t so.’

  • Jesse

    Your wrong and unimformed. Thomas Jefferson once said “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.

    If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

    The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” WOW looks like you are 100 percent wrong and they wanted us to do this all the time to stop the terrible government we have today. Have fun being a dumb ass and misinforming people.

  • Flyingguns

    Im a damn proud patriot. I sure as hell will not allow liberals, communists, and muslim terrorists supporters drag this great country into the ground

  • Bill Adams

    It’s possible that some of you may recognize this famous line.

    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,

    That covers it.

  • bobrien2

    This is easily one of the dumbest articles I’ve ever read. Read the federalist papers, read a history book. Founding fathers were both patriots and traitors, and frankly there are times when it’s better to be a traitor than a patriot.

  • Jeff

    The federalist papers do an excellent job of explaining the constitution and bill of rights. This article is full of incorrect information. The Heller vs. DC Supreme decision also does an excellent job of summarizing the documented reasoning applied during drafting and ratification of our constitution and bill of rights.

  • n0valoco

    “That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
    ― George Orwell

    How any of my fellow Leftists can believe otherwise is simply beyond me. The right to self defense is part and parcel of the 9th Amendment and is protected by the 2nd. How did MLK Jr protect himself? Deacons of Defense since he was always turned down for a CCW permit. How much did crime go down in any neighborhood patrolled by the Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NOT the new hate group, the one that marched on the Sacramento state house with legal firearms in the ’60’s)?

    The firearms are not the dangerous part, the danger resides in the minds of the State which would use its force against its people.

  • MosinTom

    It’s hard to believe that one can get a degree in Political Science with one’s head obviously in a spot where his bellybutton is his peephole.

  • MLV1055

    If you read the writings of the ‘rebels’ that started this nation, Yes it is exactly what that portion was for because they had already lived it and to speak as though it were not so is a revisionist stance.

  • TommyG

    Roger L. Moore. You have no idea what you are talking about. Why not put up or shut up. I can show you how much of a coward any day of the week.
    This article is so absolutely ridiculous it isn’t even funny. Maybe do some research and understand that the Second Amendment is exactly for the express and sole purpose of defending the US from enemies foreign and domestic. That if someone tries to say, become a dictator by stealing our rights and forcing, let’s say, everyone to be part of a national healthcare plan, that we patriots defend the US Constitution and RESTORE government. You seem to think overthrowing a person in a governing position who is NOT abiding by the Constitution is the same as overthrowing the government. So you are patently WRONG.
    Molon Labe.

    • Iraqi Vet

      Ultimately, We The People, are the government. A treasonous act would be commited against the Constitution and against the People. You cannot be a patriot (wanting the Constitution and Our rights upheld) and be a traitor in the same breath…
      If a person wants to write an article about the Constitution, pretending to be an expert, they shoud first read the Federalist Papers and the dissenting Anti-Federalist Papers, so they can know the full intent behind each and every Article of the Bill of Rights.

  • Nick

    No amount of whining is going to change the fact that Patriot and Progressive are mutually exclusive.

    When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

    Thomas Jefferson

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    Thomas Jefferson

    The Tyrant would be you.

    No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.

    Thomas Jefferson

    For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

    Thomas Jefferson

    There are pages of this stuff from all of our founders. I’ll take their counsel over yours.

  • The Chosen One

    The framers of the Constitution had literally just fought a revolutionary war against an oppressive, tyrannical government. OF COURSE they wanted to preserve that ability for the citizens of the new nation. Believing otherwise is absurd.

  • TJJ300

    Allen, you have all the credentials, and the mindset, to become a brownshirt when the government requires it.

    • Nick

      I thought they where already forming the brown shirts. There are already children praying to Obama so I am sure the brown shirts are out there.

  • Fred

    Wow, all I got to say is
    How do you think this country started?
    What makes you think criminals follow laws?
    How many unicorns do you pet at a time?

  • Iraqi Vet

    Ultimately, We The People, are the government. A treasonous act would be commited against the Constitution and against the People. You cannot be a patriot (wanting the Constitution and Our rights upheld) and be a traitor in the same breath…
    If a person wants to write an article about the Constitution, pretending to be an expert, they shoud first read the Federalist Papers and the dissenting Anti-Federalist Papers, so they can know the full intent behind each and every Article of the Bill of Rights.

    • Iraqi Vet

      I accidentally posted this twice…

  • Adolph Schumer

    Not one reference given to support this traitor’s rubbish. Lies backed up by nothing. Typical left-wing “facts”. Too bad there is nothing from the Founding era to support these absurd delusions they can even twist to make their point.

  • The Logical Truth

    Sir – The Declaration of Independence states

    “…
    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
    affect their Safety and Happiness.”

    I would go into more details but there are many other comments on this thread that speak volumes. I would encourage you to read the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and the Bible. Pray for discernment and wisdom.

  • patriot

    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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
    established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
    accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to
    suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
    abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train
    of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a
    design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it
    is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
    for their future security.

  • Einstein

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
    So what do you “progressive’s” call arming the Muslim Brotherhood? It’s called giving aid to the enemy. Hello pot, this is kettle.

  • Hammer

    You, TJ and some of the others here must be carpetbaggers. Here in the Confederate states we can tolerate a Yankee, hell we even let some move here, but we can’t tolerate a carpetbagger. Because of your pompous attitude you put yourself in the category of carpetbagger, besides cherry picking the facts.

    1) First let’s start where you mention “stories” about slave states. This is an issue that pisses me off, you really think you know something. You and you self righteous friends need to study history. Facts, there were more ‘slave owners’ in northern states than there were in the “slave” states. The largest slave port in the country for a long time was Boston. Oh as a matter of fact it’s a tourist attraction now. Google it. The fact that until just prior to the civil war there were no slave states VS free states to speak of. Some states would not allow slavery but the Federal Government did not distinguish between them until just years before the war. Oh by the way another fact, 1.5 million slaves in the south before the war. Half that number(That’s 750,000, in case you can’t add) in the north. So those pretty Brownstones ya’ll love so much had house slaves in almost all of them, while only 10% of southerners owned slaves, usually plantation owners. So the facts show ya’ll uppity Yankees were more prone to have a slave than us dumb hicks here in the south.
    2) The article fully reads; “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” With that whole statement not just your cherry picked part. It reads that If I was to wage war against the U.S., a complicated thing to do, forming an army, call myself a country, etc., then it would be treason. It does not state to force a change in Government by arms, of which the founders cited was the reason for the 2A. You are confusing the two things. If you can’t understand that and I can’t help you understand. Because they are different.
    3) Fact, Your stupid. You act as if the Military is some ubiquitous entity that is not human. Which means you probably have not served your country. The issue is more complicated than your simplistic rant about citizens revolting against the military. Another point I cannot help you fathom simply because you have not been there. When you have, come back and we can have a logical discussion. After 12 years in the Army, multiple conflicts, traveled the world and having seen good men die I see the world with an understanding you’ll never know.
    4) We cite the disarmament of countries, Hitler being the worn out favorite, because it is true. True in all cases. In those “free countries” where they have disarmed the people the crime rate goes up. Fact. Not going to debate it just Google it. OBTW, it IS to keep the Government fearful of the people. Don’t believe me ask the people who wrote it.

    “I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people…To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason

    “Let me add, that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.” -Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787

    So as you see that is what it, the 2A, is for. OBTW you can’t equate the Civil War to the 2A. Two different issues, that by itself makes you stupid. I really hope you stay up there and never move down here.

    P.S. TJ and his cop killer… whatever, you’re an idiot. Do us all a favor, please don’t breed.

  • T13ates

    sorry but I can’t let this comment go: “After all, didn’t we see how this would go once before? Has anyone ever heard of the Civil War? How did armed citizens fare against the federal government in the late-1800′s? You know, back when citizens and the military were much more evenly armed, and our military was much less powerful.”

    This comment implies that the author thinks that the American Civil War was a war that was like the civil war raging in Syria, where it is largely the military versus the oppressed people. Yet the ACW was more like a “conventional” war between two distinct sovereign “nations”, each with their own standing armies and navies, separate (but not equal) economies, separate laws and leaders and separate flags. Now that that particular fallacy was addressed I may continue reading

  • T13ates

    also, predicting where the cops or the military will side with is like predicting which number the dice will display when it lands…. yes you can make an educated guess and talk about statistics and site the laws of physics, but where peoples loyalties lie depend so much more than anyone could consider. what if the revolt happens during a major conflict with another country? what if the military leaders side with the people, or would rather not get involved and become like syria. what if the revolt is started by states seceding? what if it is it is not so clear cut? what if the rebels where .1% of the population? or 1%? or 10%? or more….. what if there was genocide?

  • Jim Hoover

    whether traitor or patriot is all a matter of prospective. it is offensive for you to throw that term out of your pie hole without thinking. Our founding fathers were labeled traitors with hang on site orders from the British Crown. Here is my take; You, Government or private citizens, who try to take my rights away will run into extreme violence. You see I took an oath of which I suspect you have not done to support and DEFEND the Constitution, not government, or president, or country, from foreign and DOMESTIC enemies

  • Eric Saperstein

    Seriously? – Consider going back and taking a history class from someone who was not a socialist. READ the Federalist Papers, actually go back and READ what our forefathers designed.

    If you believe this crap you’re seriously disconnected from the reality. Do you really think our founders – you know a group that the British considered to be traitors setup the second amendment to guard our outlying areas?

    Text of the Second Amendment traces back through iterations of variants that are all clearly intended to ensure that WE – the PEOPLE keep our weapons. Nothing mentioned of muskets – ARMS.

    It’s severely tragic that you do not understand or comprehend history – “Poly Sci” degree in hand, that’s really sad. You can disagree with what they did when they drafted the document but the reasons are historic fact. You can’t dispute facts.

    We’re NOT the traitors – we’re the patriots. We want nothing more than freedom, for ALL … that’s it. As was intended and provided for our Constitution restricts the government NOT the people! If the government is of the people, for the people – the WE the people have the right to oversee our services known as our elected officials!

    The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
    free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
    infringed.

    The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the
    National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation
    inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy
    reads:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
    free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
    infringed.

    Both versions are commonly used by “official” Government publications.

    Earlier proposals and drafts of the Amendment

    And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize
    Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of
    conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are
    peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

    Samuel Adams, (February 6, 1788), reported in Charles Hale, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    (1856), p. 86. This language was proposed in the Massachusetts
    convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution to be added to
    Article I of that document.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
    infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
    security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of
    bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    Original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought
    to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S.
    House of Representatives. original text

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
    being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
    and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously
    scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

    Reworded version of the Second Amendment by the select committee on the Bill of Rights, July 28th 1789. AoC pp. 669).

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
    being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
    and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous
    of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in
    person.

    Draft version of the Second Amendment sent by the House of
    Representatives to the United States Senate, on August 24th, 1789.
    (Note: When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the
    religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate
    scribe).

    A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free
    state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
    infringed

    Revision voted on in the U.S. Senate, September 4th, 1789.

    A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the
    right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Final version passed by the U.S. Senate; the phrase “necessary to”
    was added when the proposed Amendment was entered into the U.S. House
    journal.

    Quotes relating to the adoption of the Amendment

    The following statements were made by various founding fathers prior
    to the adoption of the Second Amendment. While most date from before the
    wording of the second amendment was established, four were made during
    the 1789 debates over its adoption:

    Thomas Jefferson

    No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

    Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776.

    “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Occasionally
    this phony quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson is given with the
    following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950).
    The publication exists, but the quote does not. And the editor’s correct
    name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd. In other cases, this quote is
    added to the end of a proven Jefferson quote “No free man shall ever be
    debarred the use of arms…” Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia
    Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.

    What he actually said, in context is:

    “No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements.”
    The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is
    inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or
    they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

    • Juan A Sepulveda

      Informative but conveniently incomplete:
      All this hypergraphia still does not reveals a single instance of any single one of the founding fathers to allow a militia with the intention of having citizens overthrow a dictatorial president. THAT IS LUDICRUS and as much as you all try to prove it the constitution does not grant ANYONE that right.
      Read Article II Section 2(1) on the president’s authority over the Militia: how come the militia’s purpose ids to overthrow the president if the president is their CIC? Were the founding fathers that sloppy with the constitution?
      And Article III Section 3(1) on the definition of treason against the United States: RISING against the US is an act of treason.
      Yet you have one resource to overthrow the president: it is called VOTE! But if you lose, you do not get to lead a rebellion.

  • Alex Leslie

    The problem is that these so called “free countries” are nanny states who stop their citizens from owning knives with points, and tell them what to eat and drink, stop them from getting reliable healthcare in a timely manner, and otherwise inhibit their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Our nation is not a democracy. It was designed to be a Republic, supremely ruled by a constitution. It has some democratic principles, but the problem with democracy, is that it erodes as the people’s values erode, and thus it is prone to erring from the original ideals. It is currently more of a corporatocracy than anything else.

    People let their emotions rule their decisions, instead of being analytical. Logic says that as long as someone hasn’t proven themselves a danger to those around them, it doesn’t matter what their hobbies are, what they own, or what they do to their own bodies, or to others with consent. Once someone proves themselves a danger to other human beings, then they forfeit their freedom for a duration decided upon by their peers. So yes, I should be able to own a tank, and ammunition for it. As long as I don’t point it at your house without due cause, and as long as I’m not disturbing you with it, then it’s mine, providing I can pay for it. Who knows. If Russia/North Korea/Afganistan/Iran or another of our friendly bantering partners chooses to pay us a surprise visit, you may be banging on the hatch begging to share my cramped quarters.

    • Juan A Sepulveda

      There are a couple of fallacies in your so called logic. The quantum leap you take to go from individual freedom to owning a tank is quite crazy.

      I can’t or want to own a tank, for that I pay taxes so the military owns it to defend me. The military takes orders from the president that we, the people, elected. Therefore, the military is here to defend us under the indirect rule of the people. … for crying out loud, the military is people, citizens too!
      If some do not like the outcome of an election, they do not get to shoot that tank’s canon towards the White House.

      All this nonsense of defending against Obama the dictator is just sore losers airing their anger.

  • David Wiglesworth

    First off you need to be able to understand Article 3 Section 3. I would suggest by first investing in a legal dictionary preferably Black’s. You couldn’t be more wrong in this article if you tried.

    Secondly it’s not about over throwing our government at all. The fact you are even trying to spin it that way discredits anything in the article right off the bat. It is about recovering OUR government from one that has been usurped by tyranny. (I suggest another dictionary: Oxford English)

    You know what the truly sad thing is? It’s that you even begin to presume to know what another thinks, and let alone how they have come to that conclusion. Then to make matters worse you literally cite others thoughts as source without a single name and quote to back up your shallow opinion.

    Garbage journalism at it’s worst. You cite no sources correctly, and you are merely pandering to a further uneducated following. You are responsible for the irresponsible misrepresentation of both our patriots and the United States Constitution.

    Welcome to the world of liable.

  • Strident Liberal

    “Treason is a matter of dates.” – Talleyrand

  • James Widmar

    The second amendment reads:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    You have to understand the language and thinking at the time of this writing.

    -Well regulated means accurate, in good working order. Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing the composition of the militia and says, “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a
    well- regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a
    serious public inconvenience and loss.”

    -Militia is the people. “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    -being necessary to the security of a free state, this is required to keep our freedoms. Security from anyone who would deny them.

    -the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Individual as used in the first and fourth amendments.

    -shall not be infringed. shall not be violated, trespassed, transgressed, choose your definition.

    The second amendment is very clear. You would be better off trying to repeal it than to redifine it.

  • Allen Clifton

    I don’t know why people are surprised that Allen Clifton say this. It’s not that he’s ignorant, but that he is one of the Anti-American scum that believe helping the Muslim brotherhood extremist, ignoring the US Constitution, spying on American citizens, rewarding illegal aliens with citizenship, socialism, etc. is a good thing. I bet he believes you’re safe in a “Gun Free Zone” lol

    When he was a kid they had a name for people like him, Communist, now they call themselves ” Progressives”.

  • Alaskapopo

    The founding fathers of this country were British Traitors. The reason for the 2nd amendment was to provide another check and balance to a tyrannical government.

    • Juan A Sepulveda

      Incorrect: 2nd amendment is archaic, based on the military situation of USA in the late 1700’s, and the need to mobilize citizen militia to defend the country in case of attack or invasion. The constitution actually stipulates that aiding the enemies of the USA is an act of treason. Is also stipulates that the President of the USA is the commander in chief of the citizen militia.

      So rounding up a militia with the purpose of taking over the government is, as in any other democratic government, an act of revolt, treason and punishable by death.

      Your only shot to get the president you want is to win an election: GOP did twice in 2000 and 2004, and the dems in 2008 and 2012. Do not like it? Go to Cuba where the same party wins all elections.

  • Blake

    I’d wager, that if an armed “revolt” began because the citizenry thought the Federal Government was overstepping its boundaries and operating outside the paradigm put in place the U.S. Constitution, that most ground commanders (read: the guys who make the call on the ground such as platoon leaders, Company, Battalion, and even some Brigade commanders), in addition to the soldiers and NCOs they command, would refuse orders to fire on that same civilian population. A fair number (by no way all or the vast majority) of military personnel may agree with the opinions of said “revolt”.
    These folks don’t actually think they’d be fighting the military; they imagine themselves fighting “yes men” of the government.
    In any case, for those disillusioned individuals who believe that our massive, powerful, well-trained, well-armed, and well-funded military would sweep aside thousands upon thousands of U.S. civilian gun owners (some of whom also served in the military or law enforcement), I would invite you to examine the situation in Afghanistan, where men with nothing more than a few hundred rounds of ammunition, old/inaccurate weapons, and a devout belief in an idea are fairing against that same military. We’ve fought them for over a decade, and the fighting has still not ceased.

    • Juan A Sepulveda

      Seems like you are cheering for the Taliban, one of the most gun loving groups in history.
      How disrespectful of our troops.

  • TheyAreAmongUs

    Gerald Ford.

  • Sebi

    I have natural rights that have been endowed upon me by creator. Rights to liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Should any entity or institution impinge upon my rights. I will enforce my rights to the best of my ability.

    Ultimately the constitution was created to regulate government not it’s citizens. If government fails to follow the rule of law that is the constitution. It has become the enemy of liberty and it must become disavowed.

    There is no debate that needs to be made. I own guns to protect myself and my family. When seconds count cops are minutes away. I don’t understand the disingenuous nature that liberals uphold. Claiming police brutality as a mantra, but advocating that only they should have rights to guns.

    • Juan A Sepulveda

      …And this is how an uncivilized citizen thinks. True, the constitution is how the citizens tell the government how they want to be governed, but citizens have to abide by the law.
      Law and order are secondary to these people self-appointed rights, that will be defended and taken by force, violence and without the proper process of law. Disrespectful of their other citizens, because as long as they have a weapon, they will do what they believe is their God-given rights, even if they go against the law.

      Uncivilized zealots like these are dangerous, and that is why Liberals that own guns do so to defend the government when these cavemen come out to revolt because they do not “like” what the rule of law tells them to do, when they lose an election, when they do not want to abide by what the majority decided democratically.

  • cole leblanc

    Allen Clifton how is it even possible to come up with such a none existing argument? a police ask you to commit an illegal act and you refuse, the officer then tries to use force to make you commit the illegal act and you are left to obey and break the law, or use equal or superior force to counter the officer what do you do? the fact is that if the government commits treason it is not our right but our duty to replace them. article three is in such a case is being upheld by the citizens, they are n royalty. we sent the last royalty back to England and i suppose we will see too it that the next royalty meets a similar fate

  • John Adams

    So were all of our founding fathers traitors….ummm actually they were…DURR… otherwise we would all still be british

  • Angel Rivera

    Armed revolt would mean that you are going against the constitution. The truth is that all those people that say that Obama violated the constitution are are just angry that he won the last election. The violations they claim is really that they don’t like his policies. they conveniently forget that the executive branch is one of three branches of government. He can veto laws but even then the congress can overturn that veto.
    The constitution was written the way that it was for two reasons. It was to create an efficient form of government while at the same time spreading the power as widely as possible so that no branch grows more powerful than the other. We have a bill of rights that was the first order of business for the new government to ensure that the minorities are not oppressed by the majority. It gives protection to individual citizens from government.
    so if you plan to overthrow the government that the founding fathers created, In what world does not make you a traitor?

  • zedinbc

    The USA was born out of armed rebellion against government, so it stands to reason that some Americans still think this way. When was the last time anyone in the States congratulated the (many) Empire Loyalists for remaining loyal to Britain in 1776? Your history books all applaud the armed rebels instead. Now that the shoe is on the other foot…… oh well.

  • Juan A Sepulveda

    These neo-conservative self proclaimed experts in constitutional law make me laugh! Plocking a chunk here and there of the constitution and freely interpreting the intent of its article, just to validate their Kill-Obama postures.

    Nonsense! There is nowhere in the constitution, ANYTHING, that clearly states that the people has the right to take arms and overthrow the government. That process of overthrowing governments is called AN ELECTION! That is the genius of the democratic republican system that is their legacy.

    If you want to overthrow the government you need to wage war against the United States. So read Article III Section 3(1) you rebel scum.

    And about that militia: Article II Section 2(1). It is the president the CIC of the militia if so summoned by him. So the militia forms and tries to overthrow the president who is their CIC?… That sounds a lot like treason also, not to say insubordination, both punishable by death.

    I advise all of you self proclaimed “freedom fighters” to set aside your gun cleaning one evening, and to quietly, without mumbling, read the Constitution as a whole, not just the little sections you like.

  • JamieHaman

    It is only treason if you lose. When you win it is called a “Revolution.”
    How people, regular untrained citizens think they could reasonably win against the Armed Forces we have idk, unless the same forces JOIN with those citizens. Be a blood bath either way, and would be better to vote. That’s what voting is for.

  • Kevin Daugherty

    Yes good luck with your assault rifle against an Apache helicopter. Ever see Rambo or Truth and Lies ??? And that’s old technology.

  • Pithy Eponym Here

    194 kids killed by gin violence since Newtown, 0 tyrannical governments overthrown by yahoos with AR15’s

  • Kraig34690

    No sane person or persons would ever write a document regarding the founding of a country (or other governmental document for that matter) that gives citizens the right to bear arms against that government. It is illogical and would be planting the seed of that governments own destruction.

  • Peter Wills

    One only has to read some of these inarticulate, inane, archaic and just plain nonsensical comments to see where most of the problem in this country lies. Are you reading this gun wackos?

  • Guest

    … this speculative approach to history could very well have argued that our earth is flat – with all of the strategy it has used. Point of fact remains clear: The Federalist papers were written by the framing (Founding) fathers [the writers and ratifiers of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights] as a means of convincing those who would vote.

    “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
    — Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
    — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
    –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    I could go on… nevertheless, with just this posted shows the level audacity your intelligence and research bears.

    Learn before talking. It helps. (I would love to know where you gleaned a ‘degree in political sciences’. Hehehe…. what degree? 90, 180?)

  • Absolem Lee

    Censorship on either side of the debate shows a weak position that needs ignorance to uphold…. this speculative approach to history could very well have argued that our earth is flat – with all of the strategy it has used. Point of fact remains clear: The Federalist papers were written by the framing (Founding) fathers [the writers and ratifiers of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights] as a means of convincing those who would vote.

    “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
    — Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
    — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
    –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    I could go on… nevertheless, with just this posted shows the level audacity your intelligence and research bears.

    Learn before talking. It helps.

  • Megan Shephard

    Actually, our most patriotic Americans are our military and I very much they would follow a rogue government bent on destroying the fabric of the United States. I am in the belief they would join taking up arms against any attempt to overthrow our government.

  • $19524517

    The name of this site , “Forward Progressives” is the condensed version of a longer name. Forward Neo Bolshevik,Cultural Marxist Anti American NKVD thought police wannabes .. English is a fantastic language to be able to convey so much in such a short title!

  • Truelitistnot

    Everyone who fought tyranny and founded the US was a traitor to their own country. The loyalists ended up the real traitors in the end. Be careful being loyal.

    • $19524517

      The distinction must be made, as Mark Twain put it so well. “Loyalty to the country, allways.” Loyalty to the state ,when it is deserving of it”. A government that does not respect or adhere to its founding documents of law , is but deserving of only scorn and ridicule .. As so it is with the so called “progressives”who would defend what is only able to be described as indefensible.

  • Brandon Biagiano

    Um the dumb fuck who wrote thos arricle should kill himself.people don’t have rights anymore and there votes don’t count anymore.what a fuckin idiot.oh and btw past presidents said that was what the second amendment was for so stfu you dumbass writer.you’ll be the one suckin the governemnts dick while we fight it. Faggot

  • Murin Ar Panterac

    It’s glaringly obvious that the author did not read nor understand the works of Thomas Jefferson or any other of the Founding Fathers. Stupid Liberal Communist Trash.
    And for the morons who will undoubtedly point fingers and bash Me for being a “republican” or a “teabagger” I have this to say to you. The American Citizen Party is putting up our candidate in 2016, STONE ANTHONY.
    Has it completely went over your head that BOTH political parties are funded and controlled by the same corporate power structure? Let’s take Obama and Romney as an example
    (no despite what liberals are SURE to claim I’m not a racist. I could give a hell less if Obama is black or not, so can the racism cracks) ~moving on~
    BOTH Romney and Obama received campaign contributions from GoldMan Sachs, and from other large corporations as well. All politicians regularly receive huge sums of money from corporate interests. You know they have a word for that… its called FASCISM.
    And then you get defenders of FASCISM such as Allen Clifton.
    When you fools finally wake up and realize that you have been duped by a FALSE left/right paradigm, I wonder, will it be too late to save our nation?
    It’s becoming the general opinion among the Patriot Community (and there are A WHOLE LOT MORE OF US than there are of you btw) that Liberals and Conservatives as well suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
    The truth in that will be demonstrated by those who reply…
    ~ love
    The Anonymous Patriot

  • Chance

    The second amendment is supplied for overthrow of the government if government is to become unconstitutional. Our system allows for a maximum of a 10 year presidency. It take less than a year to enact marshal law on the united states, which would then abolish the freedoms of the people to vote in officials which would stand for them. AT the point in time that the government becomes unconstitutional, then by the nature of the constitution itself, the government is no longer american, which would mean that the enemy would be DOMESTIC. that’s why the military gives oaths to defend against foreign and domestic tyranny. We WERE British. until we decided to be TERRORISTS and take action to change our status of being. Without guns we would be British. we overthrew government to become american, if it means we have to overthrow government to stay american, then so be it. ill be the one standing on my porch firing back when the nice government comes to politely take my means of protecting my family and my country. Besides that, guns are for personal protection. most liberal gun restriction advocates are correct in thinking that in places where guns are prohibited, less gun deaths are reported. BUT they fail to mention that their rates of homicide by other means is HIGHER. if you cant get a gun, you stab them, or beat them to death. Lack of a gun wont stop you, but a person holding one pointed back at you will.

  • Tony Chester

    When the entire system is corrupt and it matters not who is voted in… then what?

  • rob

    The second amendment is merely a a piece of the overall puzzle; let’s look at the declaration of independence…

    …”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.”

    But… as we can clearly see by looking around as of late, these rights have been trumped by those in power for personal gain or gain of the few. And if anything at all… I simply want my gun because those in power do not want me to have it; even if it collects dust. This article blindly avoids the Declaration of Independence; the entire point of separating from King George.

    And, if the criteria fits that the people must stop the tyranny of the government, it is they who are the would be traitor(s). These rights are inalienable. No amendment is necessary; the rest is politics.

  • adcbeast

    FOX NEWS PLANTATION .. The who believe that they need to overthrow the US govt want anarchy …. TRAITORS …

  • Todd

    This article is shameful to read coming from an American. There’s nothing more American than revolution. Our founding fathers wrote the second amendment into the constitution because all free adult citizens should be able to own one, if only as a last resort to government tyranny. No. Everything about this is wrong.

  • mike46

    If our Founding Fathers had your attitude about being a “Traitor” this country would not exist. We had to “overthrow” the controlling government to become the country we are today.
    Congress would also have to change a number of rules for the military to operate as a military within the borders of the US. If it got that far that we were using our military against its citizens I’d say that it was probably time to replace them.

  • Accept that voting at the federal level is meaningless and the the Founder’s creation has been usurped by tyrants with vast amounts of wealth and power who are in an unholy alliance with the monolithic corporations they control and whose dalliances with lackey figurehead politicians has created an immense army of lackeys controlling the many systems that control the USA.

    Yeah, wallow in the mire of the endless propaganda drenching the masses of common folks that as things are is correct and proper. mental slave chains are stronger then steel and so many indoctrinated idiotic complacent commoners ally their slave chains with pride.

    However, there is a growing number of folks realizing the existence of the HUGE SCAM that the USA has become and we refuse to be serfs for tyrants. Since the systems controlling the USA; legal, political, law enforcement, economic, etc. are beyond repair the only alternative left is the much-needed Revolutionary War Two.

    What will be the spark igniting that much-needed day of reckoning?

  • Hannah L Duer Giffen

    Look if you read the title of this topic here it is a complete oxymoron. “So You Believe Guns Give Us The Right to Overthrow Our Government? Congrats, You’re a Traitor”
    Now, tell me what sense does that make?

  • TamiandMatt Shobert

    Between their cigarettes and beers, they will commence firing.

  • Good luck using your pistols to overthrow the elected government, who are armed with heat-seeking missiles, tanks, drones, chemical weapons, warships and nuclear weapons.

  • Of course the party who created the KKK wants to disarm the slaves. Slaves won’t be slaves very long if they are armed. Self proclaimed liberals are the most racist and authoritarian totalitarian criminal scum bags there are. Keep your guns, buy more guns, and ammo and when these so called Democrats try and take away your inalienable human right of self defense to make you their chattel, show them what the 2nd amendment is about and water the tree of liberty with these Maoists slave masters.