No, Ted Cruz, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect your right to rebellion

[n2doc]

by Jon Green

Yesterday, TalkingPointsMemo reported that Texas Senator Ted Cruz sent an email to supporters urging them to send him money to make him president so that he could, as president, protect their right to violently overthrow the president.

As the email read:

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty

Cruz’s assertion was so absurd that Lindsey Graham — sporting an A rating from the NRA — not-so-subtlely compared Cruz to Jefferson Davis, pointing out that as far as armed rebellions go, “we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again.”

The email is a reprisal of a meme normally reserved for NRA forums and first year government seminars at Liberty University, trotted out by gun activists once they’ve run out of arguments for why they so desperately need to keep an arsenal of high-caliber weapons stockpiled in their toolshed.

How historically nonsensical and utterly baseless Cruz’s claim is shouldn’t bear repeating, but if a US senator and declared presidential candidate is taking the argument seriously, it does.

more

http://americablog.com/2015/04/ted-cruz-2nd-amendment-no-right-to-rebellion.html

[Gothmog]

1. The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact that allows overthrow of US govt

I find the concept that the Second Amendment promotes the overthrow of the US govt. to be idiotic

[jeff47]

4. Especially considering just how outgunned they are

"We'll overthrow the government with our AR-15s!!!!" - Idiotic Whackjobs

"Bang" - shot from 50-cal machine gun on M1A2 tank, impervious to AR-15 bullets.
"Bang" - shot from 30mm chaingun under Apache Attack helicopter, out of range of AR-15
"Boom" - Hellfire missile from Predator drone, out of range of AR-15
"Boom" - Precision-guided 500lb bomb dropped by B1 bomber...or B2 bomber...or F-35...or F-22...or A-10...or.....
"Boom" - Rocket from MLRS system 100 miles away.
"Whoosh-Boom" - Tomahawk cruise missile from a ship over the horizon.
"Bo-bo-boom-boom-boom-boom-bo-boom-boom..." Didja know one B-52 can carry about 20 cluster bombs?

An armed rebellion that only has weapons generally available to civilians will not go very well.

[lancer78]

6. Dunno,

Taliban insurgents are still around after 12 years in Afghanistan.

[n2doc]

12. US nut jobs are too soft and weak

Living in caves without their fox news would get pretty old quick.

[jeff47]

25. Because we aren't a totalitarian dictatorship willing to annihilate them.

"But the government cares too much to wipe out vast swaths of the country" doesn't apply when you're talking about armed rebellion against a government that doesn't care about wiping out vast swaths of the country.

[arely staircase]

36. indigenous group fighting a foreign army

a teabag rebellion would be an indigenous group fighting against the indigenous war machine.

[linuxman]

8. Did you serve in the military?

If so, how inclined would you have been to drop bombs on your fellow citizens and their neighborhoods?

How about on your own neighborhood?

Aside from that, we're currently fighting a war against people who can make rifles in caves and use them to give all of the ordnance you mentioned a pretty good run for its money.

I'm willing to bet a domestic insurrection wouldn't face near as harsh a response as the Afghan insurgency is currently facing.

[n2doc]

11. The Civil War was pretty brutal

I don't see it being any different if the RW wackjobs really went for their fantasy. First atrocity committed by them and it would be on....

[linuxman]

15. Different time different attitudes, different circumstances.

At the time of the CW, citizens identified as citizens of their home states more so than as Americans in general. Regionalism was much stronger, and for some, Alabama may as well have been Britain or France.

Regiments were raised regionally as well. New Yorkers went south to Kill Virginians. Virginians went North to Kill Rhode-Islanders. Todays mixed military makes that impossible to repeat.

If you think soldiers could turn on their fellow Americans, what's to stop soldiers from using the same lack of scruples to turn their arms on the government? It would go both ways, but I see it as extremely unlikely in either case.

[samsingh]

16. how about protecting the right to vote?

[linuxman]

18. I'm not sure what you mean in the context of the thread.

Can you elaborate further?

[jeff47]

26. You demonize them just like the "ragheads" in American Sniper

And since this is a totalitarian government they're rebelling against, there isn't any other media sources to contradict the narrative.

Then the government wipes out entire neighborhoods to kill the "evildoers".

Aside from that, we're currently fighting a war against people who can make rifles in caves and use them to give all of the ordnance you mentioned a pretty good run for its money.

Because we're actually trying to not harm civilians. When these yahoos are rebelling against a government that doesn't give a shit about civilians, that's not going to happen.

In their minds, they would be rebelling against a government willing to set off nuclear weapons in false-flag operations. It's dumb to assume concern for civilian casualties in that situation.

[arely staircase]

37. against fellow citizens who started the whole thing by attacking the military

I assume that is what armed rebellion means.

[linuxman]

39. You mean like Fort Sumter?

Yeah, that resulted in the entire military siding with the government against the rebels...

[arely staircase]

40. enough to get the job done nt

[former9thward]

19. That is not what happens in rebellions.

If this country ever got to the point of mass armed rebellion the military would not be immune. They would be part of it. During the Russian revolution the military supported the Czar -- until one day they didn't.

[jeff47]

27. And if the military supports the rebels they will be bringing weapons.

Making the stockpile of AR-15s not necessary.

[former9thward]

30. Your right to own a weapon does not require a reason.

The 2nd amendment does not require permission from the state. It is an individual right as President Obama has said.

[jeff47]

38. Yeah, that's why there's no reason explicitly listed in the 2nd amendment

Oh wait, there is.

[DetlefK]

5. "...being necessary to the security of a free state..."

That's a one-size-fits-all excuse.

[onehandle]

2. The Second Amendment is Corporate Welfare.

Nothing more.

[hack89]

9. The right dates back to the 1600's so I doubt that is the case. nt

[starroute]

24. The idea of an armed and well-trained militia goes back to the Anglo-Saxons

The idea was to have all the peasants be able to rush out with their scythes and pitchforks and fight off Viking raiders. The Normans revived the practice after they conquered England and it continued on from there.

[hack89]

28. An individual right to bear arms was in the first English Bill of Rights of 1689

which, by the way, was the model for our Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights dealt with constitutional matters and laid out basic civil rights. Specifically, the Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties":[6]

laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament;

no taxes should be levied without the authority of Parliament;

the right to petition the monarch should be without fear of retribution;

no standing army may be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament;[note 2]

Protestant subjects may have arms for their defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law;

the election of members of Parliament should be free;

the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted;

jurors should be duly impannelled and returned and jurors in high treason trials should be freeholders;

promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;

Parliaments should be held frequently.

[Skittles]

3. he knows how stupid gun humpers are

he knows they'll believe him

[hack89]

7. The 2A merely protects an individual right to keep and bear arms

it can be heavily regulated short of an outright ban.

[NutmegYankee]

32. Sounds like what happened to the right to choice (abortion).

Heavily regulated, but not outright banned. But so regulated as to be effectively banned.

[hack89]

33. I don't think gun rights are so divisive as abortion

there is not a major difference between the parties and certainly neither is seeking to severely limit gun rights. You can't be pro choice and be a Republican. You can be pro 2A and be a Democrat.

[NutmegYankee]

35. Not one pro-choice person supports heavy regulation of abortion.

I would argue no pro 2nd person supports it either. One has to remember, common citizen ownership of arms is a very liberal concept. Classic rightwing viewpoints, that is that positions that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, do not support the common people owning arms.

The right wing in this country doesn't actually support everyone having a right to arms. They only support it for their supporters. Drive up to a disadvantaged minority housing area and hand out free AK-47s and I'd bet easily that the Republicans would quickly support gun control.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Ted,

you do realize that all your guns mean absolutely nothing when going up against a government that wields tanks, attack helicopters, cruise missiles, fighter jets, stealth bombers, drones, and NBC weapons?

You do realize that the first "rebel group" to seriously pose a threat to the government will be dead in about an hour?

The truth is you can buy all the guns you want, and we are still a police state. The government simply finds it less troublesome to let you play with your little toys than to stamp you out of existence.

When the government wants you dead, you will die when a cop pulls you over for a broken tail light.

[former9thward]

20. That's what we told the Taliban in 2001.

And they are still there, killing Americans, and in effective control of the majority of the country. I agree with your point when it comes to individuals. Yes, if they want you dead you will be dead. Massive rebellion is a far different story.

[Kelvin Mace]

22. Bit of a difference between

Afghanistan and the territorial United States. The government has far more ways to find you and kill you in the U.S.

[former9thward]

23. Not that much difference.

I've been to both. Remember the abortion bomber who hid out in the Carolina's for years? The FBI was hunting the SDS Weathermen in the 70s for years and only caught a few. Most surfaced 10 or 15 years later voluntarily after their lawyers worked out deals for them.

You are working on a false assumption. You assume a unified government force. If we got to the point of mass armed rebellion that rebellion would be in the police/military also.

[n2doc]

13. So if Rafael get elected, that means we can overthrow him with his blessing?

Cool backup plan, dude!

[UTUSN]

14. But DERSHOWITZ & TOOBIN tell us he's very VERY *smart* & not to mock him!1 n/t

[samsingh]

17. silly stupid cruz - why not protect the right to vote if it's liberty you want to promote?

seems like you're promoting facism

and isn't overthrowing your government treasonous? you must be part of the 47 tehran senators.

[liberal N proud]

29. Because he does at least know that he would never win an election if it were fair.

[Takket]

21. i wonder how far...

These militia types that think they need guns to overthrow the government if it gets too oppressive would actually get against the military if they marched into Washington to take out the President, SCOTUS and Congress.

[Oilwellian]

31. Ironically, the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent armed rebellions

The Second Amendment dealt with concerns about “security” and the need for trained militias to ensure what the Constitution called “domestic Tranquility.” There was also hesitancy among many Framers about the costs and risks from a large standing army, thus making militias composed of citizens an attractive alternative.

So, the Second Amendment read: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Contrary to some current right-wing fantasies about the Framers wanting to encourage popular uprisings over grievances, the language of the amendment is clearly aimed at maintaining order within the country.

That point was driven home by the actions of the Second Congress amid another uprising which erupted in 1791 in western Pennsylvania. This anti-tax revolt, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, prompted Congress in 1792 to expand on the idea of “a well-regulated militia” by passing the Militia Acts which required all military-age white males to obtain their own muskets and equipment for service in militias.

In 1794, President Washington, who was determined to demonstrate the young government’s resolve, led a combined force of state militias against the Whiskey rebels. Their revolt soon collapsed and order was restored, demonstrating how the Second Amendment helped serve the government in maintaining “security,” as the Amendment says.

Beyond this clear historical record – that the Framers’ intent was to create security for the new Republic, not promote armed rebellions – there is also the simple logic that the Framers represented the young nation’s aristocracy. Many, like Washington, owned vast tracts of land. They recognized that a strong central government and domestic tranquility were in their economic interests.

So, it would be counter intuitive – as well as anti-historical – to believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people – at least the white males – so uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts, could be repulsed.

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/21/the-rights-second-amendment-lies/

[hack89]

34. No. It was merely one of the rights they enjoyed as Englishmen that they wanted to retain.

the right to bear arms was included in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 - along with other rights you will recognize in our Bill of Rights.

Yes, the 2A was right was critical to the militia system. But they still saw it as a fundamental individual right. Several state constitutions of the day actually do phrase it in terms of an individual right to self defense.