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

It is one sided, the rich and their globalist politicians control your military. You will be defeated so don't ever think about being violent.

This estimate is for a small minority of militia that Donald Trump referred too, and is not for the majority of people who use the second amendment as intended for tyranny.

The second amendment was established for the majority of Americans to defend against England's government from enforcing taxation without representation, not a minority of disenfranchised Americans.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-armed-rebellion-2016-8

 

Correct, but the people need to alter or abolish this federal government that has been destructive to unalienable rights.

Rockford stated it best.

If the First Amendment is well used, the second is not needed.

Another aspect is found through unity by the people upon constitutional intent, essentially agreeing with and accepting these definitions of prime constitutional intent.

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?

That aspect is that IF, we properly conduct our right to alter or abolish, a lawful and peaceful revolution , AND the government fails to act within the constitution, our law of our land, THEN, law enforcement and the military will be on the side of the people, because they will have shown they ARE the lawful element.

At that point there is none left to resist except the NWO, which is an enemy cultivated by the infiltrated federal government to use for taking over the nation. After being sequestered in their tunnels for 5 years, they will negotiate, and become Americans again, and an important aspect of national security.

It all depends on our ability to understand constitutional intent, rights NOT enumerated, and demand that the purpose of free speech be enumerated by 3/4 of our states in preparation for Article V.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...olution-defense-enforcement-constitution.html

 

Trump was not talking about mass rebellion but there are 90 million legal gun owners in the US and it's estimated that one out of every ten would come out blasting if the government moved to confiscate. Imagine 9 million marching on Washington and everyone is carrying a gun.

 

You're making the mistake of thinking all 9 million of your people are mentally unstable conspiracy theorists.

It'd be great if the treasonous cowards actually came out. Perhaps we could tar and feather them. I imagine trump's defeat will likely end up with a lot of geriatric white dudes crying on the internet in lieu of your armed rebellion.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Founding fathers would have referred to you as the "treasonous coward."

Please note that I'm not calling for or supporting an armed revolution as I don't think we need one yet. Just calling out your stupidity at suggesting that if the American people conduct thier most sacred and important right in overthrowing a tyrannical government (you know, the whole reason we became a nation in the first place) that they are automatically "treasonous cowards".

 

The interesting question is how must of the US military and other forces such as national guard units would join those cowards?

Take note the former USSR military units refused to open fired on the crowds around the Russian parliament and when Napoleon return to France the units that was send to capture him join him instead.

 

BS.

The "majority" never fought against England, and by the 1770's, it was referred to as the British Empire.

And the Founders clearly stated they wanted the people to retain the means to overthrow a tyrannical govt-in fact thats specifically what the 2nd is about.

Listening to lefties talk about the 2nd is like listening to kindergartners telling where babies come from.

 

Actually no it's not. Article one section eight defines the militia pretty clearly and it talks about putting DOWN insurrection...which incidentally was HOW the militia was used back then

 

well not to bust your balls, but did you even read your own link? it sounds like a utopia operation, least force needed, and minimal harm, sunshine and rainbows... but do you genuinely believe this is what will happen? do you honestly think if we ever reached a point, where the military was called out to shoot its own citizens, that this would end with that one single perfect example of textbook logic applied to the battlefield? you don't think it would cause an immense uprising not only against the political forces who ordered soldiers to shoot american citizens, but there would be an immense refusal among those military members to shoot their own people? did you not pay attention to what just happened in Turkey? are you dismissing how military people armed with enough firepower to obliterate cities, were refusing to shoot civilians?

and what happens if this did spread to countless other places across this country, our military wouldn't be able to handle operations in dozens of cities across this country, it would be a blood bath and I have a feeling any nutjob who is willing to take over a town, is more than prepared to die for whatever wacky reasons they have for taking over a town... but please, don't make it sound like a sunshine and rainbows solution, it would be FAR more complex and unlikely to ever happen that way with our own people... I mean look at the wacky loon ranchers who were refusing to leave grazing lands they stopped paying for, or those wackos who took over that park building and held it for a while... did anything in your source happen in either of those two instances? this is why your source is nothing more than military 101, not reality 101...

 

Lolz, there is no article one, section 8 of the 2nd. The 2nd was pertaining to all citizens both at the time, in common understanding till today (till lefties couldn't understand it), and has been upheld by SCOTUS.

You are arguing a topic you know nothing about, using naive comparisons (section 8 lolz), and you aren't doing a great job.

 

You do know that had happen already when the country was only a few years old?

Hamilton and Washington himself, as president, let a overwhelming force of 13,000 militiamen into PA to end the so called Whiskey Rebellion.

Facing that level of force the rebellion fell apart.

 

Give the man a break, he's from Chicago...

 

Yes, imagine.

When all the government has is tanks, artillery, attack helicopters, and the best trained and equipped military in history.

 

An all the military is for sure going to remain loyal to the Federal government or is there going to be tanks and attack helicopters around the Whitehouse and the Pentagon as units join the mass rebellion?

How many of those 20 something soldiers are going to willing to killed large numbers of their countrymen and in many cases family members?

People raised in upper middle class and beyond far left wings households are not going to in those tanks for the most part.

 

The next part is important:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient cause.

We have all the constitutional tools we need to resolve the difficulties we have. 34 States can call for an article 5 convention to draft constitutional amendments that among other things impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress. Indeed I believe 8 states have already done so and the remaining 41 State legislatures have it under consideration.

http://www.conventionofstates.com/the_jefferson_statement

 

Our military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, not the politicians. Soldiers are required to disobey unlawful orders. The military is not going to turn on the people. The military is part of the people. Mercenaries might, but they won't represent the US government.

Our founding fathers wisely addressed many contingencies. Losing a war fought in our homeland by a foreign invader should be the only way Americans have to face a tyrannical government. Our budget nullifies the likelihood of that happening.

We don't ever have to face a tyrannical government. We have the vote. If our elected officials do not represent their constituency, it is the responsibility of that constituency to recall that official and replace them, or not re-elect them. We can replace our government any time we need to, bloodlessly, by changing our elected representatives. They should act in their constituents best interest remembering they represent those that voted for them and those that didn't, but also act in the interest of the union of states. If they don't, vote them out of office. Otherwise, we must respect will of the people through their chosen elected official's work, even if we disagree politically.

The government we have is the government we have chosen… through the vote.

 

I did say in my second paragraph that I do not believe we need any kind of armed revolution.

 

Article 1, section 8 of WHAT? The 2nd Amendment? There IS NO "Article 1, section 8" of the 2nd.

There is no angle you can spin this (text, historical meaning, judicial interpretation, widespread use) guy, you just don't know.

 

I felt a lot more comfortable about that until I studied the Civil war more.

With our professional legislature and all the entrenched infrastructure, I think the States may need to call a convention to draft amendments to specifically address term limits, fiscal policy and limits of Federal power. Now it would be nice if our Federal legislature would do this themselves, but they are naturally loathe to limit their own reach, which is why George Mason insisted that the States, should the need arise, be empowered to call a convention to draft amendments even if the Congress refuses to do so

 

My dad was a Civil War historian, so I think I understand your sentiment, but I stand by my beliefs that our military will never turn on the people. That being said, if the economy tanks in some places, I can see corporate security wreaking some havoc for a buck. That concerns me as much as terrorism.

We've allowed the entrenchment with our vote. If we want a change, we can vote differently. I'm reluctant to call for a constitutional convention because once we do, anything goes, and I simply don't trust some of the yahoos not to do something stupid. However, we do have the ability to have a constitutional convention, if enough people think so. I just think it is more important to hold Congress' feet to the fire and make them do their jobs than try to go around them with a convention. The system is there for a reason and it works if we, the people, supervise it by the vote. If people want to take their country back from the entrenched politicians that don't represent them, all they have to do is vote for someone else, but also realize if their candidate doesn't win, that, too, is the will of the people and there are election consequences to accept.

 

No it doesn't. Applications restricted to a particular subject do not allow for consideration of other subjects. Otherwise one would have already been called. Hundreds have been submitted, but they haven't quite reached the 2/3rds number on a single issue. So yes, if the States called a convention to draft term limits, clarify the extent of federal power and impose fiscal discipline, that is all that convention could draft amendments for.

Even if they did, it would have no power without ratification by 38 states.,

I have to tell you, I really losing confidence in that working. Frankly I thought the '94 elections were the ticket and then the 2010 and 2014, but they just seem to change once they are inside the beltway. That is just two much power, concentrated in too small of an area, and they simply cannot stand up the concentrated power of the pressure groups. Especially when set against the more widely dispersed sense of discomfort that is settling on the country. They simply hear their voices, more clearly than ours.

So, we are pushing for a greater involvement of the State Legislatures acting on concert. The Federal government is simply trying to do too much and doing it very poorly, its a power base that has to be spread out

The most heartening thing about the 2010-12-14 elections is how much state and local power moved from Democrat to Republican. Over 1,000 Democrat office holders, replaced by Republicans, and the ones of that number that are not inside the beltway are remaining true to those that sent them there. We can keep working on the federal election route, but the longer term answers to federal assumption of powers not delegated to it by the Constitution is likely to be through the State Legislatures acting in concert.

Scalia's Thoughts:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/justice_antonin_article_v_convention

The Jefferson Statement:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/the_jefferson_statement

 

Since when do you care about what the founding fathers said?

It doesn't define the militia at all.

Just like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

If the states don't vote to go to convention, that's the will of the people. If the people don't care enough to change the system using the vote, that is the will of the people. Minority is just that. To become the majority, you have to convince enough people that it is the right way, not just go around Congress with a Constitutional Convention because it doesn't take its own power away quickly enough. The political pendulum is going to swing back and forth, reactionary, but slow… so slow that change isn't abrupt and radical. When a more radical change does slip through, the pendulum reacts just as strongly in the opposite direction. We're constantly in flux between dealing with the past and growing into the future. What's important is that the people determine the path's direction, not the path directing the people. Convince enough people and you can make a change. If the message doesn't resonate enough, either try a different tact or respect the will of the people not to follow.

 

No but there are laws on the books that do. The Constitution defines the militia's role (and emergency force the president can call up) while current law defines the militia as the National Guard (organized) and every able bodied male, civilian citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 (unorganized). It's to the militia that the 2nd applies (the language is quite clear).

That the unorganized militia has never actually been called up is the only reason the Supreme Court hasn't struck down every liberal (I don't use the word ideologically) gun law as without a standing force to apply it to, everyone (at least male 17-45 year olds) is theoretically the militia. Likewise the 'well regulated' language is why conservative (again, not used ideologically) gun laws haven't been struck down. The ambiguity of the unorganized militia in the absence of a standing force has caused the 2nd to be applied more broadly than intended and placed our laws in a weird grey area nobody can get out of. There is absolutely no political will to change the militia law or amend the constitution (at least on this point) and no president has ever thought to solve the issue by simply calling up the militia (or perhaps they've feared the act being mistaken as prelude to a coup) then narrowly apply the gun laws.

 

Well, in our system of government We The People are not a collected group, rather we are a community of sovereign individuals (the term sovereignty is never used in the Constitution because the Federal Government is not sovereign, we are and we delegate specific tasks them with the authority to carry those tasks out). When we threw off the Monarchy we essentially were ruled by 13 different state governments and one of the major drivers to the Constitutional Convention was to reign in Democracy and we did it by establishing a Republic. Majoritarianism was encroaching on the rights of minorities despite the clear statement that the purpose of government was to secure rights for the individual and Just power flowed from the consent of the governed. Not any power, but only Just power. A legislature, even by majority rule cannot just implement any notion that comes into their collective heads, though they are certainly running rampant over this restriction, and I'm rapidly losing my confidence in our ability to reign them in, given what presents itself today.

Forming a more perfect union is an ongoing process. We tied up some very important loose ends with the amendments following the Civil war, and frankly the amendments enacted during the turn of the century progressive movement that stripped the State Legislatures of their House of Congress has probably contributed a great deal to loss of State Power vs the Federal Government. Certainly with the State Legislatures loss of control over the Senate, the Judges confirmed by the Senate are much less committed to controlling the reach of the Federal Government. I'm not suggesting undoing that, I'm not a guy that likes to go backwards, but would rather continue to move forward to a fresh solution and the next step to forming a more perfect union.

The insight that formed our nation is personal sovereignty and how to enable sovereign individuals to operate successfully in close proximity to one another. And the fact of free will is that folks will make choices that harm themselves and are less than ideal, but we need to push the limits on allowing each their free moral space to make their own decisions to the greatest extent possible. These clowns we have now think they can pass any idea that pops into their pretty little heads with little regard to the will of the governed. We have clowns restricting the size of soft-drinks? What's next? Salt intake? My goodness where does it end.

They pile up massive bills you need a handtruck to move, these are fairly old folks in the Legislature, yet they consider these bills in all night session like they are still Frat boys in their 20's. Who makes good reasoned decisions at 3am in the morning? And they they pass these bills that nobody read, they are signed by the President, who never reads them, and then dribbled out to use as the Federal agencies convert them from legislation to federal policy, complete with the creation of felony violations. Unelected staffers, write polices that carry felony penalties. I don't remember who, but the Congressional Research Service was once tasked (it may have been by Rand Paul) to count the total number of felonies created by the unelected Administrative State. They were unable to give a count. No kidding, they didn't even know how in the world to even begin to count up the number of felonies and yet we have a court doctrine developed in this county of "presumption of the law". That is "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and yet the Federal government can't even count up the number of felonies created by the unelected Administrative State?

This is clearly out of hand, and I am very low on confidence that the continued operation of normal elective procedures is going to roll any of this back, much less continue progress down this dangerous path. But I understand your concerns and share many of them, I just think that we are there and we need to take up the task our Founders ensured we could if we reached this point. As Scalia pointed out, once we do it once, we will have much less need to do it further. The Federal government will take note and act with more restraint following this.