The "insurrectionary theory" of the Second Amendment is nonsense

[KingOrfeo]

All enemies....foreign and domestic, I'm sorry but your simply wrong.

Domestic enemies = insurrectionists.

 

[ryan8558]

Domestic enemies = insurrectionists.

= Dems or = Pubs, it just depends upon your POV.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Corker warns Obama on the lawlessness of his actions on the ATT:

Of course, that has nothing to do with this, and neither does Obama have anything to do with this.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

Domestic enemies = insurrectionists.

That's a matter of perspective taken on who's doing what bubba....no revolution/rebellion/insurrection is ever clear cut. You can sit here and try to make it as black and white as you want but you, me and anyone with half a brain cell knows it's not.

 

[Recidiva]

Obama and his radicals are the prime movers against private ownership of guns in America. He aims to advance his policy by lawless means if necessary. Don't try and make him out to be an innocent in this battle for our freedom.

Actually, no. He made one colossally stupid comment about clinging to guns and God and that may be one of the dumbest things said by an American Presidential Candidate.

However, he has not said much at all about taking away legal gun ownership, though I saw gun ranges with some outrageous claims, fanning teensy flames that didn't exist until they were huge.

Limiting gun use for those who shouldn't have a gun or putting limitations on criminals is not the same as attempting to take them from the sane people. A lot of people want saner laws that have more basic security checks and registration in the same way that you have to register a car. You register it because it is a practical concern, not so that you know where to go to take all the cars away.

 

[Sean Renaud]

^^^^ Except that one is almost entirely impossible without the other.

That's a matter of perspective taken on who's doing what bubba....no revolution/rebellion/insurrection is ever clear cut. You can sit here and try to make it as black and white as you want but you, me and anyone with half a brain cell knows it's not.

There are definitely shades of grey but the bottom line is he's right. You attack the government you become a domestic enemy. That isn't grey area at all and while depending on the cause I can easily see large portions of the military defecting I'm sure they all know good and damn well what the consequences will likely be if they lose the fight. If they win of course then they were great guys fighting for freedom n shit.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

And there's where your case for "guns ALWAYS" falls apart. Since the militia is everyone; everyone's guns are subject to regulation.

Come back when youre sober.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Oh, no... he wants them all.

Then he must be saving the best for last.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted by Congress on June 25, 1798

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/laws/alien_sedition.html

The Smith Act was enacted by Congress on June 29, 1940

Title I. Subversive activities. The Smith Act set federal criminal penalties that included fines or imprisonment for as long as twenty years and denied all employment by the federal government for five years following a conviction for anyone who:

...with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or...organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.

On June 4, 1951, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Dennis v. United States upheld the conviction of Eugene Dennis for violation of the Smith Act.

From the case syllabus

1. As construed and applied in this case, §§ 2(a)(1), 2(a)(3) and 3 of the Smith Act, 54 Stat. 671, making it a crime for any person knowingly or willfully to advocate the overthrow or destruction of the Government of the United States by force or violence, to organize or help to organize any group which does so, or to conspire to do so, do not violate the First Amendment or other provisions of the Bill of Rights and do not violate the First or Fifth Amendments because of indefiniteness. Pp. 495-499, 517.

On June 17, 1957, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Yates v. United States overturned the convictions of 14 leaders of the Communist Party in California “conspiring (1) to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing the Government of the United States by force and violence, and (2) to organize, as the Communist Party of the United States, a society of persons who so advocate and teach, all with the intent of causing the overthrow of the Government by force and violence as speedily as circumstances would permit.”

Justice Harlan in writing for the majority:

The essence of the Dennis holding was that indoctrination of a group in preparation for future violent action, as well as exhortation to immediate action, by advocacy found to be directed to "action for the accomplishment" of forcible overthrow, to violence as "a rule or principle of action," and employing "language of incitement," id. at 341 U. S. 511-512, is not constitutionally protected when the group is of sufficient size and cohesiveness, is sufficiently oriented towards action, and other circumstances are such as reasonably to justify apprehension that action will occur. This is quite a different thing from the view of the District Court here that mere doctrinal justification of forcible overthrow, if engaged in with the intent to accomplish overthrow, is punishable per se under the Smith Act. That sort of advocacy, even though uttered with the hope that it may ultimately lead to violent revolution, is too remote from concrete action to be regarded as the kind of indoctrination preparatory to action which was condemned in Dennis. As one of the concurring opinions in Dennis put it:

"Throughout our decisions, there has recurred a distinction between the statement of an idea which may prompt its hearers to take unlawful action, and advocacy that such action be taken."

There is nothing in Dennis which makes that historic distinction obsolete.

A June 9, 1969 per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio held:

“These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

The “imminent lawless action” standard remains in effect today, but there can be no doubt based on legal precedent that the “lawless action(s)” prohibited by the standard includes the violent overthrow of the United States government.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Don't get caught up on what he says, watch and understand what he does. he lost the gun control debate, it's over.

He does nothing. He did lose the debate but he's got no good reason to let it rest.

 

[Byron In Exile]

It doesn't matter. You will never shoot me. You will never shoot the police, not even if they are coming for your guns. You might someday shoot a burglar, but that will make little difference in the world.

I could shoot you and get away with it.

Stop fooling yourself.

Nobody would even find your dumb-ass corpse.

 

[Recidiva]

Don't get caught up on what he says, watch and understand what he does. he lost the gun control debate, it's over.

I agree. I don't think that abortion rights are going to change or that gun rights are going to change. Now it's about shifting things by inches, but the battle's done, now it's just the squabbling around the edges. But the more people try to set precedent, the further out the issue goes.

Done deal, lost battle. But I do think we could do with background checks and better security and that would make things better and make people feel they've done something.

For me I don't think that the gun itself changes murderous intent, and that people will die anyway. But it might cut down on that window between deciding to kill someone and then calming down while figuring out the method. But if someone's determined, they'll just go for explosives and make it count for more people.

If you channel someone's focus by making them do research, you're going to get a higher body count because people that are homicidal and focused want to make an impact.

However, if either side melts away into the woodwork and doesn't vote, then yeah, things can change fast. At least maintain a verbal vote.

 

[Byron In Exile]

No, I haven't. My father in law, an Iowan, had a hunting and fishing cabin up there but I never got a chance to visit it before he died. I understand it's beautiful.

This will be... probably the trip of a lifetime.

We've got to plan this, because we need to hit Texas and Louisiana, and Kansas and Minnesota.

South first, or north?

 

[Byron In Exile]

I agree. I don't think that abortion rights are going to change or that gun rights are going to change. Now it's about shifting things by inches, but the battle's done, now it's just the squabbling around the edges. But the more people try to set precedent, the further out the issue goes.

Done deal, lost battle. But I do think we could do with background checks and better security and that would make things better and make people feel they've done something.

For me I don't think that the gun itself changes murderous intent, and that people will die anyway. But it might cut down on that window between deciding to kill someone and then calming down while figuring out the method. But if someone's determined, they'll just go for explosives and make it count for more people.

If you channel someone's focus by making them do research, you're going to get a higher body count because people that are homicidal and focused want to make an impact.

However, if either side melts away into the woodwork and doesn't vote, then yeah, things can change fast. At least maintain a verbal vote.

Pennsylvania is where we're going.

Philadelphia.

(If he hesitates, I'll put a gun to his head)

New Jersey is not far from there.

 

[Recidiva]

Pennsylvania is where we're going.

Philadelphia.

(If he hesitates, I'll put a gun to his head)

New Jersey is not far from there.

C'mon by, leaves are turning soon, it'll be beautiful.

 

[Byron In Exile]

And there's where your case for "guns ALWAYS" falls apart. Since the militia is everyone; everyone's guns are subject to regulation.

And you're subject to being shot in the head.

Idiot.

 

[Byron In Exile]

C'mon by, leaves are turning soon, it'll be beautiful.

Gods... I'd probably melt.

Autumn is beautiful here, and I'd love to see it there.

VM says spring, though. And I doubt he'll let me drive...

 

[Sean Renaud]

I knew you could be the new KRC! Good job, bravo!

 

[KingOrfeo]

The 9th Amendment rocks my socks:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Oh, snap!

You can't seriously believe that includes any right of insurrection.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Natural law man....

Does not exist.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Obama and his radicals are the prime movers against private ownership of guns in America. He aims to advance his policy by lawless means if necessary. Don't try and make him out to be an innocent in this battle for our freedom.

But all that has nothing to do with the question of whether the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with insurrection or armed resistance to government.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Pennsylvania is where we're going.

Say hi to ex-Police Chief Mark Kessler.