Another Sarah Palin Endorsee Threatens Violence

[chrisrobin]

You get to abolish it every couple of years in a non-violent revolution called elections.

But Broden and Angle are advocating a minority abolishing the government of the United States, duly elected by the people.

In my day, we used to adhere to a quaint document known as The United States Constitution. Advocating a violent overthrow of the government was known as "treason".

It's a good thing we are no longer burdened by such restrictions. Let the Tea Party begin!

 

[Kulindahr]

You get to abolish it every couple of years in a non-violent revolution called elections.

Really?

You mean every couple of years all the federal laws vanish and all the bureaucrats have to go home and find honest work?
If that's supposed to happen, I sure haven't noticed it!

But Broden and Angle are advocating a minority abolishing the government of the United States, duly elected by the people.

So? The Founding Fathers were advocating a minority abolishing the government by Great Britain, duly consecrated by the Church, and elected by the people.

In my day, we used to adhere to a quaint document known as The United States Constitution. Advocating a violent overthrow of the government was known as "treason".

It's a good thing we are no longer burdened by such restrictions. Let the Tea Party begin!

"No longer"?

Never have been -- the right of insurrection against tyranny predates the Republic and has never gone away.

 

[MercuryJones]

ou mean every couple of years all the federal laws vanish and all the bureaucrats have to go home and find honest work?
If that's supposed to happen, I sure haven't noticed it!

The people can elect people to repeal or change federal laws, if they so wish.

The Founding Fathers were advocating a minority abolishing the government by Great Britain, duly consecrated by the Church, and elected by the people.

No, they advocated a minority breaking away and forming a separate government. It was not their design to abolish the government of Great Britain, which survived the Revolutionary War, as you know.

While the Declaration 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, I rather take it to mean a consensus of the people - not any loony faction.

Or did you think the Founders intended that any citizen or citizens was at liberty to simply assassinate the duly elected representatives of the People?

 

[Kulindahr]

The people can elect people to repeal or change federal laws, if they so wish.

But that's not what you said -- you said they can get rid of the government every couple of years. "The government" includes all laws, all politicians, all bureaucrats.

While the Declaration 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, I rather take it to mean a consensus of the people - not any loony faction.

I doubt there was a "consensus" in the Revolutionary War -- there was just a sufficiently large number of motivated people.

Historically, the political position of most people is "I don't care; just don't bother me". It's always a minority who effect change.

Or did you think the Founders intended that any citizen or citizens was at liberty to simply assassinate the duly elected representatives of the People?

Where did we start talking about assassinations?

 

[MercuryJones]

Oh, does assassination not qualify as armed uprising?

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, does assassination not qualify as armed uprising?

Do the Phelps rabble protesting at a funeral qualify as a broad grass-roots movement?

Assassination might be a part of an armed uprising, but it is insufficient on its own. This should be plain because the Declaration notes the right of the people, not a right of scattered individuals.

 

[jackoroe]

You get to abolish it every couple of years in a non-violent revolution called elections.

But Broden and Angle are advocating a minority abolishing the government of the United States, duly elected by the people.

That's not the circumstances that the Declaration talks about. And there was no advocating doing so, as of yet in any event. The option is there, however. And what if it were a majority of people that thought it was OK. Would you support an armed insurrection then?

 

[White Eagle]

I should read that... have to check at the library.



I'll point out, as the one who brought it up, so do Libertarians -- and we've been trying to get through to you liberal Demcorats that the greatest argument in generations for letting the Second be as soundly exercised as the first was George Cheney.
Er. I mean Dick Rumsfeld.... um, Don Bush.
Oh, heck -- you know who I mean.

They're holdiing a gun show at a nearby town. I may take you up on your offer. Things don't look good for after Nov 2

 

[fasteddy]

Christsakes, what's wrong with these people. The right wing has lost it, thanks to people like Angle, Palin, Beck and the other demagogues. They already have blood on their hands. The Koch brothers are doing their job well.

As johann commented, liberal Democrats have second amendment rights also.

Liberal democrats don't believe in the 2nd amendment.

 

[MercuryJones]

That's not the circumstances that the Declaration talks about. And there was no advocating doing so, as of yet in any event. The option is there, however. And what if it were a majority of people that thought it was OK. Would you support an armed insurrection then?

So are we agreed that some disgruntled Republicans threatening "second amendment solutions" if they can't get a majority of votes is not what the Founders described in the Declaration?

To answer your question, if a majority of citizens think its time for armed insurrection, then the system has clearly failed completely, so sure.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Liberal democrats don't believe in the 2nd amendment.

If you believe what the right wingers have been telling themselves to stir up their base.

However if a right winger shows up on my property un-announced, or un-invited, this "Liberal Democrat" will either give them some buckshot, or a cap in their ass depending which gun is closest at the time.

It's called the Texas Castle Law, and I support it.

 

[CowboyBob]

Liberal democrats don't believe in the 2nd amendment.

Another ridiculous statement from you.

 

[bankside]

Surely if I have a so-called right to shoot someone who threatens my freedoms, then I have the right to take "subsidiary measures" - that being anything up to and including taking a life when threatened.

In my case, as part of my subsidiary measures, I choose to vote for government that will outlaw this nonsense, round them up, and deprive them of their guns.

How about them apples?

 

[Kulindahr]

Liberal democrats don't believe in the 2nd amendment.

Make that "liberal democrats high up in power".

There are the Blue Steel Democrats, though they often waffle on things.

If you believe what the right wingers have been telling themselves to stir up their base.

However if a right winger shows up on my property un-announced, or un-invited, this "Liberal Democrat" will either give them some buckshot, or a cap in their ass depending which gun is closest at the time.

It's called the Texas Castle Law, and I support it.

Surely if I have a so-called right to shoot someone who threatens my freedoms, then I have the right to take "subsidiary measures" - that being anything up to and including taking a life when threatened.

In my case, as part of my subsidiary measures, I choose to vote for government that will outlaw this nonsense, round them up, and deprive them of their guns.

How about them apples?

Of course you have the right to take a life if you're threatened with death or serious bodily harm -- that's just common sense, and easily derived from the fact of self-ownership.

But if you want to reduce violence, rounding up guns is the opposite of what you want. If you do vote for rounding up guns, you've just voted to make everyone into victims of whatever criminals come along -- which means you've declared, by the only social compact that matters, that your own life is fair game. To be honest about it, you should post a sign on your home that clearly states that you oppose guns and therefore everyone inside is totally defenseless.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

Liberal democrats don't believe in the 2nd amendment.

My Mossberg 500A and Taurus .38 spl revolver would like to kindly disagree with you.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I have to wonder about all these "revolutionaries" that claim they want to take their country back. Why is it that the first Tea Bagger party was only 1 month AFTER Obama took office? Where were the "revolutionaries" just 3, 5, or 7 years ago when they had their A team in office?

The America we have right here, right now, is the America these same "revolutionaries" created. So why do they hate it so? If they are wanting to overthrow the current government they truly, absolutely, thru-n-thru despise America. They hate it!

And yet when you sit any of these reactionaries down and ask them the problems, SPECIFICALLY, they can't come up with anything. It's just talking points and rants they heard on Beck / Limbaugh / et al... There tools. You know... idiots or know nothings.

 

[Kulindahr]

And yet when you sit any of these reactionaries down and ask them the problems, SPECIFICALLY, they can't come up with anything. It's just talking points and rants they heard on Beck / Limbaugh / et al... There tools. You know... idiots or know nothings.

Bullshit.
The only way you could believe that is to keep your ears plugged except when you're sure something very liberal is coming along.

 

[White Eagle]

If you believe what the right wingers have been telling themselves to stir up their base.

However if a right winger shows up on my property un-announced, or un-invited, this "Liberal Democrat" will either give them some buckshot, or a cap in their ass depending which gun is closest at the time.

It's called the Texas Castle Law, and I support it.

I knew we could do it but I didn't know the name of it. Thanks.
I've always heard if the wounded crawls off your property you better go and pull him back.

 

[Kulindahr]

I knew we could do it but I didn't know the name of it. Thanks.
I've always heard if the wounded crawls off your property you better go and pull him back.

The Castle Doctrine is actually setting out an inherent human right. What';s sad is that our society drifted so far into cowardice a law was necessary to stop government persecution of those exercising their rights.

Though we're in the same boat with gay rights, huh?

Here's a deal the Democrats could offer the Republicans: we put a national Castle Doctrine in a bill killing DOMA, establishing ENDA, and doing away with DADT, and we all vote for it.....



Nah -- it makes sense, and this is government we're talking about.



edit: in most places, you're entitled to restrain the wounded so he doesn't crawl off your property in the first place. OTOH, if he's able to crawl, you probably need to work on your aim.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Bullshit.
The only way you could believe that is to keep your ears plugged except when you're sure something very liberal is coming along.

You're full of bullshit dude.

I haven't met a SINGLE FUCKING ONE OF THEM, that can describe what they want, and why they are angry. Why do you think that fucking is Kuli? Seriously? Use that fucking brain god gave you and tell me why you think that fucking is!?!?!