joether -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/9/2012 2:29:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Then perhaps you will be kind enough to point out specifically where the US Constitution authorises or protects seditious calls for "armed revolution" against the constitutionally elected Government and President. Because I for one am unaware of any such provisions. Really? Then you should read it sometime. The First and Second Amendments are in part crafted to protect the right of the People to foment a rebellion and to assure they have the means to raise one. K. Neither one of them states it directly OR implies it! The first explains that citizens have the right to "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of the Press". It also states, they have the right to sue the goverment over greviance. If you believe a law tramped over your right to a firearm, you could 'sue' the goverment to show the law is unconstitutional and therefore must be removed. It doesnt state ANYWHERE in that amendment that persons have the right to 'main, maul, kill, destroy and drop atomic bombs on each other's heads'! The second explains the concept of a 'well regulated militia'. That the role of said militia is to protect population from foreign elements (invasions by the English, French, Indians, Brigands, Bandits, etc) and domestic issues (riots, famine, floods, highwaymen preying on travelers, etc). And that those in the milita have a rank akin to a professional military (Sergeant, Captain, Colonel, etc), and should have their arms ready if needed at a moment's notice (i.e. the minute men). And that their right to have firearms is more to do with their nature in the militia, than....just for the hell of it! Likewise, if the governor could command a town's militia into action (stop highwayman, put out a fire, etc) it was feared he could command them to lay down their arms as a precursor to creating a tryannical state. Its has NOTHING to do with people that wish to over thrown the country and install their own version of the US Constitution (were they rule with fear and intimidation, NOT, the rule of law). The idea was to protect the nation FROM a tyrannical goverment, NOT, to install one because the previous one WASN'T!
|
|
|
|