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.

The only plausible civil war scenario in America is government doing some massive gun confiscation scheme as part of a general hard-Left takeover.

I'd bet on some type of massive disaster happening, with resulting citizen unrest/killing, --- triggering a stupid govt attempt to stop the chaos by gun confiscation, instead of relief efforts.. --- At that point, a civil war would likely erupt..

It started to happen in New Orleans...

On which "side" would that be?

That was kinda my point. ALL sides will steal weapons. The government will always try to confiscate weapons of its opposition. The heartbreaker is, everyone against the government will steal from each other too.

“I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world,” Rice told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday. “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”

Like most she fails in the comparison. It's not a matter of guns as we all know but of who has them. We used to be a God fearing society which for the most part knew killing was wrong and most held to a divine reckoning beyond this life. Not to mention a temporal punishment of execution for killing others.

The problem is we now live in a nihilistic society who has access to guns.

---- citizens who “are or have been in Actual Rebellion ---

-- in rebellion to the government of the USA, the gov't acting under constitutional principles, --- can have weapons confiscated certainly. And every example you quoted, they were in actual rebellion, only the whiskey tax of dubious consirutinality. As usual gatlin is on the wrong side of a constitutional fence.

the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

"From each according to their ability to each according to their need"

Always sounds so awesome.... to the L.I.F.E.R. free loader parasites riding the gravy train being pulled by, not them.

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

Au contraire, mon ami.

(A bit of French lingo there to demonstrate my fondness for little froggies.)

The original intent of the second amendment was to offer citizens the opportunity to avoid the type of tyrannical rule that they came to America to escape. This modern government has become so huge and onerous it's fast becoming a threat to all citizens, We hope that a president Trump can stick a sword in the dirigible and deflate it.

Political and social unrest can cause governmental response and unforeseen consequences that impugn the rights of individuals. So, your thinking aobut the purpose and use of the Second Amendment is somewhat skewed.

To protect themselves from a government that, however inadvertently, no longer protects them or, even worse, attempts to persecute them, citizens must be able to maintain their own arms.

Why did the founders write the second amendment, Ms. Rice.....

The elite pansies (and lesbians, in this case)that we allow to rule and ruin our lives and country have their own interpretations.

because she was a potato, with a vagina.

Like Hillary, we assume Condo has one of these. Who knows she may have sprouted a penis.

You do know that I never once mentioned the Second Amendment anywhere In my post, don’t you?

You do realize that the 2nd Amendment is the topic of conversation, don't you Parsons?

If you disagree with me you are a dumb ass.

The whiskey rebelllion wasn't about the right to bear arms.

You do however have the right to hold and express your pwn opinion.

You are a snide one, Gatlin! (That's snide....not wise!)

The second amendment protects our pre existing right to own and possess arms. Its purpose is to keep us free from tyrants. So it is in case someday we the people can kill the people who would enslave us through government!ent, should that become necessary.

No use trying to reason with that arrogant clown - he's happy being a slave and when the gooberment says you MUST turn in your guns, he will do so with a smile because by golly - the government is god.

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

He should move to Maryland.