Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Guns in U.S. are ‘ultimate check against government tyranny’: Cruz
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo ... ainst-government-tyranny-cruz/
Published: Apr 17, 2015
Author: Joel Connelly
Post Date: 2015-04-17 05:56:24 by out damned spot
Keywords: Guns, tyranny, Cruz
Views: 3708
Comments: 26
The right to gun ownership in America is not just about hunting, or protecting property and person, but “the ultimate check against government tyranny,” argues a fund appeal from Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R- Texas. The Cruz fundraising letter echoes arguments made by militia groups, and a far-right demonstration last winter that followed voter passage of an initiative requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. “The Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t just for protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice,” said Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general. “It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives and to serve as the ultimate check against government tyranny — for the protection of liberty.” The argument was immediately challenged — and lampooned — by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., another possible GOP candidate. “Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C. Graham was referring to South Carolina as the first state to secede from the Union after Abraham Lincoln was elected president, and site of the first shots fired in the Civil War. “I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than, you know, guns in the street,” Graham added. Verbal shots fired by the two Republican White House hopefuls illustrate the direction taken by their party in recent years. Graham was considered a conservative insurrectionist when he was elected to Congress as part of the GOP sweep in 1994. He is now a Senate insider. Cruz, elected in 2012, is far to his right and is already responsible for one partial shutdown of the federal government. Graham argued that Republicans have a political target on which to take aim. “I’m not looking for an insurrection,” he said. “I’m looking to defeat Hillary. We’re not going to out-gun her … I think in a democracy the best check on government is voter participation. I think the First Amendment probably protects us more.” But Cruz is hoping to corral a key constituency among Republican voters and caucus-goers who will choose their party’s 2016 presidential nominee. “I am the only candidate running for president who not only believes in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms — but has the record of fighting for it, tooth and nail.” He has competition. Ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio spoke at the just-completed National Rifle Association convention.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: out damned spot (#0)
“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C. Lady Lindsey is kinda bitchy lately.
It is time to do a serious study of Romans 13!
Lady Lindsey is kinda bitchy lately. He might as well stop the charade and run as a Democrat. Maybe even the VP spot with Hillary.
Good grief... It takes a posturing stooge like Cruz to make Lindsey Graham look reasonable and rational...
So you are against the second amendment? What part of Cruz's statement do you find untrue?
In today's world, I believe that the 2nd Amendment only serves a legitimate purpose for individual self-defense against criminals. Cruz's whacknut rhetoric about "government tyranny" may have made sense in the late 18th Century, but it merely encourages the kooks and endangers the general public in the 21st Century.
And what's NOT "criminal" about a corrupt, tyrannical gubmint?? Cruz's whacknut rhetoric about "government tyranny" may have made sense in the late 18th Century, but it merely encourages the kooks and endangers the general public in the 21st Century. "Kooks." So that's how you refer to those who defy tyranny and would defend the Republic from unconstitutional criminal usurpers of We The Peoples' authority?? Stunning.
Funny that you would instead believe Lady Lindsey's own "posturing." Wait...it's you, isn't it?
It's also about time Graham to showed up at the Senate in a yellow sundress and tiny umbrella.
“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C. Willy Green --- In today's world, I believe that the 2nd Amendment only serves a legitimate purpose for individual self-defense against criminals. Poor confused Willy, -- believes like Graham, that the south was defending its citizens rights. Wrong. The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; -- and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense.
Your incessant strawman arguments are dull and monotonous.
No, the South wasn't defending slavery; It was defending it's right to self-governance and sovereignty, right or wrong. "Slavery" was a minor issue,but of course the Yankee Press controlled the narrative and propaganda -- just like today. Moreover, the terms of the individual States' contract with the fedgoob to join the Union were violated.
Where's the 'straw man argument' Willy? -- Grahams comment obviously means he thinks the south had a 'right' to enslave blacks. --- Your position on guns, agrees with his.
The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; - - and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense. You cannot deny that the northern states were about to pass an anti-slavery amendment. This was a major issue to the southern economy. Yep, they had a bunch of other issues, -- just like today,-- but slavery was the principal constitutional issue.
Yeah... you're full of shit, too.
The South was NOT fighting FOR slavery. Again, Southern State citizens were fighting for their own sovereignty and right to govern themselves. If "slavery" was such a huge "constitutional" issue, then why hadn't the original Founders thought so while maintaining, "all men are created equal"? Furthermore, the North was NOT fighting to end slavery. Let's be real here. This was a power play. You cannot deny that the northern states were about to pass an anti-slavery amendment. This was a major issue to the southern economy. Irrelevant. The North, representing the interest of its own business elites -- invaded the South. HELLO. And ever since, States' Rights have been subservient to an over-officious federal Leviathan. Yeah, that worked out well, eh?
Well, if the government as you see it is not criminal, then I can't help you. You've seen all the stories for many years about just how corrupt these bastards are, so, sigh...... However, since you seem to agree that the second amendment has a place, if the 'kooks' are right, they will have the means to self defense and setting up a good perimeter as they erect the guillotines.
Don't know if you've read this yet, thought you might find this guy worth looking at, very funny and well written stuff.
And you, Cruz, Wayne LaPierre & Timothy McVeigh think that an armed insurrection is the appropriate mechanism for "regime change?" No thanks... As far as I'm concerned, the government needs to lock-up the anti-government kooks to protect us law abiding citizens, If that means registering and regulating who can own handguns or rifles or what types of ammo & magazines they can use, so be it. I'm not interested in supporting any domestic anti-government terrorists posturing as self-anointed "patriotic" militia... They're actually nothing but a bunch of dangerous, paranoid dingbats.
The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; - - and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense...slavery was the principal constitutional issue. (As a cause of the civil war) So they claimed, but the confederate constitution was virtually identical, with the exception of allowing slavery, -- to the US CONSTITUTION they rebelled against. The Constitution allowed for slavery to be abolished after 1808. (See Article I, section 9) You're denying historical reality. There was a massive national movement to abolish slavery. You cannot deny that the northern states were about to pass an anti-slavery amendment. This was a major issue to the southern economy. No, the abolition of slavery was imminent, not irrelevant. And it would have collapsed southern business elites. The Fed leviathan started with the success of progressive socialist movement around 1900. It had nothing to do with civil war anti-slavery.
Get real Willy... Armed insurrection would be a last resort, as the 2nd guarantees. Yep, so be it, Willy. Your treasonous, anti-constitutional political stance is guaranteed by the very constitution you disdain. Look in a mirror Willy, -- you'll see a dangerous, paranoid, dingbat..
President Bush call[ed] the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper." The report was posted on Dec. 5, 2005. According to author, Doug Thompson, unnamed Republican leaders complained to Bush during a White House meeting about "onerous" portions of the USA Patriot Act, prompting the following: Capitol Hill Blue: “I don’t give a goddamn,” [G.W.] Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
The Progressive-Statist movement started in earnest right after the North declared victory. The carpetbaggers and international Banksters swooped in and exploited the situation. Between Dewey, Wilson, and the Jeckyl Island confab, I think we can pin down the approx date that the Progressive/Statist ownage of gubmint began being enforced in the open. There was a massive national movement to abolish slavery. The movement was modest, but gaining support. The Constitution allowed for slavery to be abolished after 1808. (See Article I, section 9) 1808 is NOT 1787, is it? And anyway, slavery was apparently either grandfathered or enforced selectively on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.
Good grief, you're beyond ridiculous. Mentioning McVeigh in the same breath as Ted Cruz is insane. ZERO has already engaged in destroying this republic in broad daylight, the rule of law, our economy and security and USCON with his treasonous regime. And you're NOT worried about THOSE "repercussions"??
Never had heard or read of the guy. Read quite a bit of his essays and rants, thanks. He's spot on on so much. We should post some of his stuff here. BUT...I'm a little worried about his canary-like Frisco leather get-up ;-) which reminded me that I wished he'd have weighed more on the rampant homofascism.
The Fed leviathan started with the success of progressive socialist movement around 1900. It had nothing to do with civil war anti-slavery. Shortly after the war, the southern states were left to their own devices, politically speaking. You're simply denying history. There was a massive national movement to abolish slavery. (Before the civil war) Lincoln was elected president by this movement. -- Slavery was on its way out. And --- The Constitution, ratified in 1787, allowed for slavery to be abolished after 1808. (See Article I, section 9) And slavery was about to be abolished on both sides of the line, so the south rebelled.
The argument was immediately challenged — and lampooned — by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., another possible GOP candidate.
#2. To: out damned spot (#0)
#3. To: TooConservative (#1)
“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#4. To: out damned spot (#0)
“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C.
#5. To: Willie Green (#4)
#6. To: Dead Culture Watch (#5)
#7. To: Willie Green, Dead Culture Watch (#6)
In today's world, I believe that the 2nd Amendment only serves a legitimate purpose for individual self-defense against criminals.
#8. To: Willie Green (#4)
Good grief... It takes a posturing stooge like Cruz to make Lindsey Graham look reasonable and rational...
#9. To: Deckard (#3)
He [Lady Lindsey] might as well stop the charade and run as a Democrat.
#10. To: Willie Green, confused again. (#6)
“It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives and to serve as the ultimate check against government tyranny — for the protection of liberty.”
#11. To: tpaine (#10)
Poor confused Willy, -- believes like Graham, that the south was defending its citizens rights.
#12. To: tpaine (#10)
The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; -- and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense.
#13. To: Willie Green (#11)
#14. To: Liberator (#12)
No, the South wasn't defending slavery;
It was defending it's right to self-governance and sovereignty, right or wrong. "Slavery" was a minor issue,but of course the Yankee Press controlled the narrative and propaganda -- just like today. -- Moreover, the terms of the individual States' contract with the fedgoob to join the Union were violated.
#15. To: tpaine (#13)
Grahams comment obviously means he thinks the south had a 'right' to enslave blacks. --- Your position on guns, agrees with his.
#16. To: tpaine, VxX (#14)
The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; - - and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense...slavery was the principal constitutional issue.
#17. To: Willie Green (#6)
Cruz's whacknut rhetoric about "government tyranny" may have made sense in the late 18th Century, but it merely encourages the kooks and endangers the general public in the 21st Century.
#18. To: Liberator (#16)
#19. To: Dead Culture Watch (#17)
Well, if the government as you see it is not criminal, then I can't help you. You've seen all the stories for many years about just how corrupt these bastards are, so, sigh......
#20. To: Liberator (#16)
The South was NOT fighting FOR slavery. Again, Southern State citizens were fighting for their own sovereignty and right to govern themselves.
If "slavery" was such a huge "constitutional" issue, then why hadn't the original Founders thought so while maintaining, "all men are created equal"?
Furthermore, the North was NOT fighting to end slavery. Let's be real here. This was a power play.
Irrelevant. The North, representing the interest of its own business elites -- invaded the South.
HELLO. And ever since, States' Rights have been subservient to an over- officious federal Leviathan. Yeah, that worked out well, eh?
#21. To: Willie Green (#19)
Dead Culture Watch (#17) ---- Well, if the government as you see it is not criminal, then I can't help you. You've seen all the stories for many years about just how corrupt these bastards are, so, sigh......
Willy ---- And you, Cruz, Wayne LaPierre & Timothy McVeigh think that an armed insurrection is the appropriate mechanism for "regime change?"
No thanks... As far as I'm concerned, the government needs to lock-up the anti- government kooks to protect us law abiding citizens, If that means registering and regulating who can own handguns or rifles or what types of ammo & magazines they can use, so be it.
I'm not interested in supporting any domestic anti-government terrorists posturing as self-anointed "patriotic" militia... They're actually nothing but a bunch of dangerous, paranoid dingbats.
#22. To: tpaine (#21)
Armed insurrection would be a last resort, as the 2nd guarantees.
#23. To: tpaine (#20)
(Edited)
The Fed leviathan started with the success of progressive socialist movement around 1900. It had nothing to do with civil war anti-slavery.
#24. To: Willie Green, Dead Culture Watch (#19)
And you, Cruz, Wayne LaPierre & Timothy McVeigh think that an armed insurrection is the appropriate mechanism for "regime change?"
#25. To: Dead Culture Watch (#18)
(Edited)
Don't know if you've read this yet, thought you might find this guy worth looking at, very funny and well written stuff.
#26. To: Liberator (#23)
The Progressive-Statist movement started in earnest right after the North declared victory. The carpetbaggers and international Banksters swooped in and exploited the situation.
The movement was modest, but gaining support.
1808 is NOT 1787, is it? And anyway, slavery was apparently either grandfathered or enforced selectively on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]