This is how the US military would put down an armed rebellion

Take note the founders did not plan on having political parties and there seems little in the constitution to prevent us from outlawing them if need be.

 

Where did you get that bit of misinformation?

 

Again, this isn't the Middle Age when rich people could make poor people fight for them. The Militia is a clearly defined legal entity; the National Guard and every able bodied male, civilian citizen aged 17-45.

 

Um no. Even Paul Ryan thought it was a joke gone bad. The only way to assume the alternative is to assume Trump misspoke. It has to do with the sequence in which he said it. He said if she were to get elected, nothing you can do except maybe the 2nd amendment people.

Congress blocking Obama's nominee is about keeping the court conservative in general, and their excuse to do this is that the will of the people will be better reflected if the next pres does the appointment. This excuse will evaporate after the election.

 

Middle age!!!!!! Let see in the civil war in the north you could hired someone to serve in your place and in the south the upper classes that own slaves did not need to serve either.

Now there is only a tinny percent of congress men and women have their children or grandchildren serving in the US military.

 

Which of congress's powers from Art I section 8 give it the power to prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the several states?

 

Hiring a surrogate isn't the same as dragging people out of their homes, giving them cheap weapons and throwing them at the enemy which is what the traditional militia/levy was. The Civil War also isn't relevant to current legal norms regarding the military.

 

Glad you are no longer in the military and by your message never should have been.

 

If thats what you call Indian attacks and border wars between the states

 

OK, you support Paul Ryan and I oppose them.

 

One my favorite songs while serving in the Marines during Nam

[video=youtube;SboRijhWFDU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SboRijhWFDU[/video]

 

Democrats engaging in an armed rebellion over the election of Trump would be crushed. Throwing rocks, setting businesses on fire and spitting at the police would not succeed.

 

i would agree the majority are suffering from obesity or other chronic illnesses, they wouldn't know tyranny since they are not well from those in power, much less mentally or physically able to get up off the couch and defend against it.

they are trained to think how the media of the rich like CNN, FOX, Hollywood, says they ought too.

this article shows us that the minority should pursue non violent means of protest, because the majority will have the military put down the rebellion of the minority.

 

Strange as I remember when I came of age the Federal government was pulling birthdays dates out of a bowl and if you have a low number you either pack your bag for one of three destinations, one a basic training camp, two a federal prison or three Canada.

The draft is just on standby now and could come on line once more is a matter of weeks and this time it is likely that young women would have the same three choices as young men.

 

Oh in my day you could get out of being drafted by just checking off the box stating you was gay and that out would no longer be available for future young men and women.

 

Correct, and the best way to do it is to use our right to alter or abolish. The key to this is using our exclusive right to define constitutional intent. Our reasoned answers to these questions is where we begin.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

The catch 22 is that the PURPOSE of free speech has been abridged, so media is not going to help us defend and enforce the constitution. We are going to have to take extraordinary measures to get this done. It is an absolute need. Our future will be very grim if we do not act now.

 

Where did you serve again?

Someone had to serve to protect people like you.

 

Agreed, and not only members of the armed forces, but many in law enforcement, etc would as well.

 

"Paranoia", and "mental illness" are just you hissing and spitting.

The founders certainly figured out how weapons worked soon enough.

Its because they knew that the only thing worse than death was living under a tyranical govt.

And they said so.

Like I said-you have nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

He's probably part of "Obama's military".

And he swore an oath to defend the Constitution.

 

I don't, but he's hardly part of the liberal machine.

 

No surprise you didn't serve.

Paper patriots seem to cry the loudest yet rarely have the courage to serve. No one should fear cowards who threaten revolution. Your lack of guts is not surprising.

 

Interesting comments by the persons who was sworn to defend the Constitution and yet does not.


The Founders intended for the 2nd to be a means to overthrow the govt. Its built into what this country is.

 

I did my part. I volunteered. You hide behind your ignorant interpretation of a document you refused to take an oath to defend. Yep, you're a conservative. All talk, no action.

If you think the military would hesitate for one second to smash an uprising of rednecks who are mad that Hillary won, you've clearly never served. Hey, you're free to wrap yourself in that freedom blanket that others have sacrificed for so you don't have to.

 

If you read Madison, it's impossible not to conclude his belief that a legitimate insurrection wins and an illegitimate one loses. The paradox of rule by faction is both its strength and its weakness. Madison did not want the needs of minority faction to be overlooked, nor did he want them to supersede the needs of the majority. The 2nd amendment's purpose is a check and balance for this paradox. It places power in the hands of the people as a check against the power inherent in those selected to lead the people.

The very premise that our standing army can be forced to fight against a legitimate insurrection of the people is false. The idea that members of the military will mindlessly fight their own brothers and sisters; against a legitimate grievance lacks a simple faith in humanity. And how could America fight such a battle against itself? The insurrection given as example is doomed to fail by the terms of its construction. It's doomed to fail as Madison would have expected it to fail. An insurrection doesn't take place in a small town. It takes place in the mind. Wars on the other hand are conducted against things. You blow up shelter. You blow up manufacturing. You disarm your enemy. If the American military can't do that in the middle east...what in the heck makes you think it can do it against itself?

 

If there was an uprising, it would be so big the military wouldn't participate because their families would be in danger.