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

Naw, that would never happen and that is not what "armed resistance" is about, nor what Trump was talking about.

2A people are blocking Obama's Supreme Court nominee now by POLITICAL pressure on Republicans in Congress. That is what he meant. POLITICAL power of 2Aers.

 

I said I've been to Iraq twice. That's all I deem you worthy of knowing. You're going to make your own suppositions anyways. If you had served, you'd know what sacrifice really entails.

I never said I hate the police. I said you being a LEO makes a lot of sense considering your posts. I love the Navy and the Air Force. Inter service rivalry is a real thing. Again, if you had served, you'd know that.

I suggest (again) you take a look at the OP. Clearly the OP asked how the military would respond to Trump's call to his "2nd amendment" people rising up in response to a Hillary presidency and her subsequent appointment of supreme court justices. I can confidently say in that case, which is what the topic is about, the military wouldn't hesitate to crush such nonsense. I'd say law enforcement would be capable of handling it,. but they don't seem to be able to handle very much these days.

 

Clearly, you're rattled and are trying to make this personal. I'd prefer to stick to the OP which you have not addressed.

 

The gov would microwave you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

or drones

or their army of robots.

Hard fighting gov unless it is door to door guerilla warfare. Then it may be a little less one sided.

 

And I responded that is not something would happen is just a stupid what-if Democrats raise to claim citizens having arms is no defense against a tyrannical government.

Instead, I gave actual examples of armed resistance on an individual level and of how historically the military have responded to mass rebellion - armed and unarmed - in various countries. Often they side with the government and other times do not.

I do not have too accept an absurd what-if from someone as then limiting the topic to actual legitimate discussion of "armed resistance" and "armed rebellion." Waco was an armed rebellion and resistance. The people their lost, but the government stopped raiding religious compounds afterwards and the AG got crushed in her US Senate run thinking she could capitalize on it.

"Law enforcement" is a hugely diverse phrase, since it involves numerous agencies at the local, county, state, federal and executive level. They are not always in agreement and can be at odds. Local law enforcement generally will stand with the local people or sidestep the matter. It is rare they will go up against the MAJORITY view of the local population.

 

That's all well and good until you factor in legalized bribery (lobbying) and Congress voting themselves above insider trading laws.

 

Direct that sentiment at the OP, then. He brought it up.

 

Right. It involved the founders. It involved weapons. It involved what some thought was an oppressive tyrannical government yet guess what? The father of our country was not amused. Assuming your idiotic point that the 2nd was about defending yourself against your own government, why didn't George say to them "gee, I guess we are tyrannical, you have guns, this is exactly why we have the 2nd, we will give in to you, thanks for being an American."

Got anything else?

 

It was a protest against a tax, and it was resolved peacefully.

It was not about overthrowing the govt.

 

So your argument that the 2nd amendment was written to give the people weapons rests upon the founders intent to give the people the option of armed insurrection, civil war if you will? This is pure hogwash. Now granted, the end result of your type of thinking did indeed to a civil war but that act of treason was never sanctioned by the founders, was not a remedy for grievances, was not mentioned as an option in the constitution and therefore, your argument is absurd on the face of it. Given your point about a tyrannical government, what exactly constitutes such a government? How many people must feel this way for it to be legal? Does it mean the people or the states? None of this was included in any of the debates leading up to the ratification, none of it was accepted by the founders and most importantly, they had a test case in the Whiskey Rebellion that was squashed by the militias themselves. You tired of getting your arse kicked or do you want more of this?

 

The treasonous cowards that create the risk of violent revolution are the same ones working to make peaceful revolution impossible- their little group is called "corrupt politicians". We are not a nation in good condition with a few loonies. We are a nation in trouble, because too many loonies have political positions but no character.

 

It is a means for The People to overthrow a tyranical govt. Yes, later on it was applied to the states too.

But its important to remember that this right exists outside of any document.

 

Correct. To be armed is an individual natural right.

 

Donald Trump was not referring to poor minorities concerning rebellion, he was talking about the majority of armed patriots.

 

I read the entire context of what Mr. Trump said. He's running for the Presidency. He was referring to how we vote and whether or not we get involved. He said that to prevent a multitude of negatives from a Clinton presidency, we (second amendment supporters) must get involved and vote for him. That's how I read it.

 

You are assuming those arms will be trained on the citizens, not the Government. The folks holding those arms have to go home at night too, what will be left to go home to?

 

Your are right about the globalists and their penchant for more power. However, only partial credit can be assigned for the historical justification behind the second Amendment. "Taxation without Representation" was in fact the tertiary (3rd) causation behind the American Revolutionary War.

The reason why most people get this part incorrect goes back to your original point about the globalists, aka the "elites." The "elites" of the 18th century were headed by the exact same five (5) headed family that is still the tip of the elite spear today. Only now, that family has more heads sitting on top of more global bodies than it ever did before.

The second causation behind the American Revolutionary War was King George's decree to the colonies that they stop printing their own money. Of course, this is where even many scholars drop the ball who should know better and they leave the story on the table without finishing it by explaining why George did that. The reason George issued that order to the colonies had everything to do with his failures as King. On the one hand, George, had failed to set any long range growth plans into motion in Great Britain such that its economy would be able to sustain itself and on the other hand the Bank of England was fully controlled by the monopolistic Rothschild family and had driven Great Britain to economic ruin and despair. Of course, this is the part in the "history books" that its authors and publishers, also controlled primarily by the same family's holding companies behind the scenes, tend to leave out or if they do include it they don't offer much focus or detail.

It was the Bank of England's destruction of the British economy that caused George to raise taxes and levy fees in the colonies to float the British economic slide. The 2nd Amendment was not ratified until 1771, a full 8 years after the American Revolutionary War and many years after George made his various moves on sugar, stamps, teas and other "violations" of "sovereignty" as claimed by Jefferson and others in the 1776 DOI.

Thus, the 2nd Amendment was a blanket of security issues to We The People, and it was so drafted for the purpose of ensuring that We The People in the aggregate and without specific designation and/or name had at least a fighting chance to defend ourselves against the same kind of tyranny that was alleged previously in the 1776 DOI - namely the tyranny of government no longer serving the needs of We The People.

I guess the bigger issue here is lost, as it usually is in discussing this matter. That, being, the over present and looming control that the Rothschilds actually have over this country, its federal government and by abstraction its People, both in whole and in part and without regard for political party, religion, ethnicity, education or station in life. The fact that the Rothschild family has been able to hide in fully daylight their total control over entire governments is testament to their creativity, determination and tenacity - not to mention their total and complete lack of moral clarity, a notion that no doubt has zero meaning to any of them.

Anyway. The conversation here was about the 2nd Amendment and how Donald Trump might be calling for some lone nut case wolf to start targeting his political adversary during a presidential election cycle in the United States of America. Oh, my! Did he really say that?

 

Sure thing. Better start hoarding ammo for your showdown with the government.

 

You honestly believe the military will take up arms against their fellow citizens?

 

Actually the militia (of whom the Second Amendment was written for and about) were called out several times to put DOWN insurrections . That would be the OPPOSITE of what you claim.

 

This is the very early days of the nation-there was no standing army.

 

If we had enough people with backbone to demand accountability and honesty, that wouldn't be necessary. Doesn't sound like that is your thing, though.

As long as you are willing to vote for more of the same- you are going to get it, and in larger doses.

 

The military doesn't take up arms, they already have them. I do think they would stop a band of ignorant rednecks who are unhappy Hillary is elected.

The delusional part is you thinking you'll be participating in an armed rebellion.

 

You're confusing backbone with paranoia and mental illness.

 

You said that, I didn't. I'm 59 and in poor health, I'm not participating in anything.