Rather, she supports looking to law enforcement and guards as ways for protection.

Yeah, well, we can't all afford guards.

The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd.

I agree.

But the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against a rogue government makes perfect sense.

The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd...

The words of a slave.

Tory:

...an American colonist who supported the British side during the American Revolution

No doubt as to which side Parsons will be on when TSHTF.

You sound like Bernie Sanders or Hillary.

Name calling is for a juvenile.

Pay attention and stop twisting peoples' words.

Stone did no such thing as "name calling"; He stated you "sound like" Bernie Sanders or Hillary.

The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government and anyone who argues that it does really has no understanding the true nature of that amendment.

The 2A IS designed to allow the citizenry to defend itself from individual as well as organized TYRANNY.

Q: Do you feel it is "impossible" for this government to engage in tyranny?? A simple YES or NO answer will suffice.

I do not believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to take up arms against the government and overthrow it

No one disagrees with that statement. However - the Second Amendment exists precisely in the case that government "goes rogue" and becomes a dictatorship.

I'm sure even you would agree with that, right?

The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government...

Once again - you're wrong.

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.

No one disagrees with that statement. However - the Second Amendment exists precisely in the case that government "goes rogue" and becomes a dictatorship.

Absolutely. AMEN!

I'm sure even you would agree with that, right?

*waiting for Gatlin's answer*....

Advocating overthrow of Government

The Second Amendment does not advocate overthrowing the government unless the government descends into outright tyranny.

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.

Rogue governments are rife throughout history. CONSENSUS: The American Founders agreed on the above mechanism that repels the tyranny of a rogue gubmint and re-secures the Rights endowed BY OUR CREATOR in a worst case scenario.

Here is the other stark point that cannot be denied:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

In other words, the "government" IS created BY The People, FOR The People as OUR representatives.

Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?

Enforce the laws on the books and add only one other: In the case of murder with a gun the perp is to be executed within 24 hours and the hell with injections, hang the bastard.

I can't imagine why you'd prefer beheading by a Muslim, to getting shot?

Why do you want to give the muzzies a loophole, are you one of those ROP bushbots?

Still awaiting your answer to addressing Deckard's declaration by the Founders AS WELL AS the answer to several key questions...

Tick... tick....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

When the government descends into tyranny, we are no longer a free state.

Are you claiming that when that happens, Americans do not have the right and the DUTY to defend themselves against an un-constitutional and rogue government?

How about when U.N. troops join with American military forces and local cops to confiscate all guns - you gonna just bend over?

Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?

If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.

That is very true

If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.

Think of all the machinists and gunsmiths in this country who have the knowledge and machine tools to produce, in short order, highly reliable shear kits for a wide variety of weapons. And about 0% of those gunsmiths would be on the lib side.

That's before you even start in on people with skills using modern CNC milling machines and 3d printing and what they could do.

If Civil War II ever comes, there won't be any lack of unofficial full-auto weapons. But no one would be handing out the truckloads of ammo to every asshole who had full-auto. They'd tell them, like they do in any modern military, to practice firing in single-shot and 2-round bursts or 3-round bursts. Spray-n-pray is not encouraged by any modern military.

But nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties.

By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal.

It's just a silly argument. I don't understand why you don't see that.

And as far as “gun control”….it is a fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.

Bosh. Adams wrote in March, 1776 prior to the Declaration.

Obviously, Adams was advocating the disarming of "notorious" militant Tories who intended to aid the Tory cause and fight against American independence.

In the era of the Founders and early republic, the colonies/states/feds had a lot more trouble from forcing colonists to buy weapons (swords at minimum, muskets by custom) than in seizing weapons from Tories. Of course, the most militant Tories abandoned the colonies and mostly fled to Toronto early on so they didn't cause much problem in practice.

Tick... tick....

Stick... stick...

I do WHAT I want to and I do it WHEN I want to do it.

You are dismissed..

I will ping you when I have something to say to you.

I am saying that the Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to take up arms agains the government.

I don't understand why you don't see that.

And I am saying that no sovereign government in history has ever granted a right to armed rebellion.

So you are mostly bleating a truism, not making some profound point as you seem to imagine.

It's the first law, unwritten, of any government that they will enforce their laws and the recognized lawful regime with force of arms against any and all citizens who rebel (or merely refuse to obey the laws when the police/army insist). Any ruling entity who did not do that is not a sovereign government because the first business of government is always to enforce its laws and protect itself from external and internal threats via its armed forces and police.

So, you do admit there “obviously” was gun confiscation by the “government.”

Adams recommended it to the various pre-Revolutionary committees in the various colonies. You haven't provided any information on just how many weapons were seized during this period of rising Revolutionary sentiment.

And it was practical revolutionary policy. The rebel colonists did not want their Tory-sympathizing fellow-colonists shooting them in the back while the rebel colonists were busy shooting Redcoats in the back from cover in the local woods. You may recall how bitterly the British complained over the cowardly colonists shooting at them from concealment.

BTW, it was illegal for the Founders to rebel against their lawful monarch, nutty George III, or the authority of the English parliament. The English would have hung the lot of them if they could have laid their hands on the Founders.

Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?

That is really a silly question to ask…but I will still answer it anyway.

Thanks for answering the bell, but no, it is NOT a "silly question" to ask given your silly assertions, which are LIGHT YEARS off the mark o the actual issue.

If individuals in the government do no uphold the US Constitution and their oath of office, then the US Constitution spells out ways they will be removed and replaced.

ALREADY happened. NOT the case. There has been NO constitutional enforcement of those who've BLATANTLY and often routinely violated their oaths while in office.

Next...

Nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties. Can you?

No I can't. Simply because NO ONE has made anywhere NEAR your breathless hyperbolic assertion. Moreover, gubmint officials have been and are currently ACTIVELY failing to "carry out their [constitutional] duties."

CASE AND POINT: California's State gubmint and judiciary both in the past and actively are ignoring and violating feral law on the issue of preventing ICE officials from carrying out THEIR constitutional duties and oath of office in removing Illegal Invaders. Then there are countless cities and towns across America establishing what are illegal "Sanctuary Cities." President Trump's federal enforcement of the US Constitution are being ignored by Democrats all levels of state and local government over the country. WITH IMPUNITY.

Any so-called "rebellion" against this government has been openly declared by high standing members of the Democrat Party. You may have heard of it; They call themselves "The Resistance." It has been exposed to have found its way into the bowels of the Deep State and DNC via active saboteurs.

NOW WHAT TO DO, Commander Gatlin??

The discussion here is that the Second Amendment does not allow citizens to take up arms against the government.

Once again you've got it wrong and created a strawman.

The discussion here is over-lapping. But mostly about the clear intent of the Founders (as Deckard quotes from the Founders) with respect to the Rights of the citizenry to repel a rogue governance and tyranny via the Second Amendment.

The American Founders agreed on a mechanism -- guaranteed by 2A rights -- that repels tyranny facilitated by a rogue gubmint that re-secures citizenry rights as well as liberty and freedom endowed BY OUR CREATOR in a worst case scenario.

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOUNDERS? Or do you dismiss the notion of a "rogue, tyrannical government" as even possible?

If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.

On this point we agree. ALTHOUGH the "vast majority of Americans" are never going to agree to an "armed rebellion" or ANY crusade, so the point is moot, thus we circle back to THE original question and issue of the intent and meaning AND rights as written in the Founders' 2A.

By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal.

Yup. Gatlin would have been a Redcoat in 1775.

He's taken a disturbing position that ALL and any gubmint can do as they please without answering to anyone. And damn The Citizenry.

The Commander appears to be advocating Totalitarianism in the democratic Republic of the United States of America.

It's just a silly argument. I don't understand why you don't see that.

He can't see it because he doesn't want to see it. OR just plain agrees with the USA transforming in a Totalitarian gubmint. Just like all the "good Germans" in 1940 or Stalinists.

He's a goose-stepping Totalitarian Statist. Anti-Constitution. At least it's on record.

No further use in engaging.

Ping me when you've become an actual American patriot.

George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.

You do know that the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) was not ratified until 1791, don't you Parsons?

Having been approved by the requisite three-fourths of the several states, there being 14 States in the Union at the time (as Vermont had been admitted into the Union on March 4, 1791),the ratification of Articles Three through Twelve was completed and they became Amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution. President Washington informed Congress of this on December 30, 1791

If Civil War II ever comes, there won't be any lack of unofficial full-auto weapons. But no one would be handing out the truckloads of ammo to every asshole who had full-auto.

That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky)

Yup. Gatlin would have been a Redcoat in 1775.

Naw, just a Tory. Perhaps planning to relocate to that vile den of slavish monarchists, Toronto. LOL

I guess Gatlin hasn't told us yet if he would have been a rebel or a Tory during the Revolutionary War. It is a concrete example of whether man possesses an innate right to overthrow the lawful established government.

So, Gatlin, would you have been a rebel American or a royalist Tory during the American Revolution?

That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky)

I wonder how many people with the required gunsmithing skills and machine tools are out there. Has to be at least a half-million, perhaps more.

And modern computerized tools could produce millions of shere kits in very short order. Like in a few days. You'd only need a few guys in a high-end manufacturing facility or at one of dozens of gun/accessory manufacturers.

Not that I've ever thought about it much. I'd better stop before you feel the sudden urge to scope out your lines of sight from the rooftop.     ; )

I found it quite interesting that Thomas Jefferson wrote into his 1775 draft of the Virginia Constitution...

It looks like old TJ gave some very serious consideration that there were to be some limitations on the individual’s right to gun ownership.

NEWSFLASH:

And all that matter is the US Constitution AND ITS CLEAR INTENT.

Thomas Jefferson was one of MANY participants and contributors of the US Constitution. But like most rabid Progs and Statists, you seem to believe Jefferson was the only Founder.

Naw, just a Tory. Perhaps planning to relocate to that vile den of slavish monarchists, Toronto. LOL

Heh...

But before busting that move to Canada (or back onto King Georges lap), I'd assume he might have stuck around just long enough to become a Tory informant....then bolted when he felt the heat.

You do know that the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) was not ratified until 1791, don't you Parsons?

Nice counter...

George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.

I never denied that hotbeds of Tory royalists were not disarmed. No more than I would deny that the first actions of the Revolution involved the Redcoats marching by night to try to seize the weapons at rebel armories, for which they paid dearly.

But how many were disarmed in these Tory hotbeds? These accounts don't tell us. Was it a handful? Dozens? Hundreds?

It does make a difference in how much weight we should assign to this. Keep in mind that espionage is known to have exercised considerable, if not decisive, influence in the outcome of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW I, WW II, etc.

So our intrepid rebel colonial Founders would naturally act against traitors, traitors like Benedict Arnold, the West Point commander and American traitor.

Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Should he have remained armed?

Nothing would be safe tho. People on your side of the fight would rob your weapons if given the chance. I'd most likely be a rogue combatant... protecting just my own family and killing the parts of my family that endanger my agenda or are dead weight.

So our intrepid rebel colonial Founders would naturally act against traitors, traitors like Benedict Arnold, the West Point commander and American traitor.

Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Should he have remained armed?

Well played. I anticipate an interesting answer (if at all.)

If the Commander wants to engage in Red Herrings, I'm betting on you.

;-)

People on your side of the fight would rob your weapons if given the chance. I'd most likely be a rogue combatant... protecting just my own family and killing the parts of my family that endanger my agenda or are dead weight.

On which "side" would that be? Has that been defined?

I'm pretty sure everyone here would batten down the hatches and protect their own in such a case.

On which "side" would that be? Has that been defined?

The American side!

Isn't it kind of silly to discuss the idea of the Right engaging the Left in America with their existing home arsenals?

The Left would show up with a few million marginal guns. The Right would show up with 400 million guns and tens of millions of people who know how to use them.

The only plausible civil war scenario in America is government doing some massive gun confiscation scheme as part of a general hard-Left takeover. Like if someone like Bernie Sanders but more extreme became prez with a 60-vote Dem Senate and a House majority. But not Sanders himself. He'd know better, even though he knows very little in general.

Had I been there at the time, it would have been General Beauregard Gatlin in this painting and not old George.

I always thought Washington looked like he had indigestion or an itch in that painting. So did many of those semi-creepy paintings of Napoleon back in the day. It was Thing for painters, apparently.