NY Dem Rep suggests using 2nd Amendment solution against Trump

[Anti Federalist]

Of course, he started walking it back almost immediately.

This is a shame, because he is right.

Trump is acting outside the bounds of the constitution, just like Obama, and just like Bush, and just like Clinton and so on and so on and so on.

The regulatory state rules us, at the beck and call of the executive branch, without any representation, outside all constitutional restraints, and daily violating the Bill of Rights in a hundred ways.

The last president to even recognize this was JFK, and we all know what the "deep state" did to him.

Maybe this could be a teaching moment...maybe.





Suozzi Suggests Using the ‘Second Amendment’ on Trump

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/suozzi-suggest-using-second-amendment-trump

Democratic rep’s campaign forwarded a quote from Thomas Jefferson to ‘take arms’ against rulers

Posted Mar 19, 2018 8:06 AM

Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., suggested people take up arms against President Donald Trump. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)

Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi suggested at a town hall that President Donald Trump’s opponents could take up arms against the president.

The New York Democrat was speaking at an event in Huntington, New York, last week and said it was important to put pressure on the president, in a video obtained by the New York Post.

“This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly,” Suozzi said. “Because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

In response, someone in the audience asked what the Second Amendment entails.

“The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms,” he said.

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Chris Martin said the video was “incredibly disturbing.”

“It’s surreal to watch a sitting member of Congress suggest that his constituents should take up arms against the President of the United States,” Martin said.

Suozzi's campaign forwarded a line from Thomas Jefferson advocating for such.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” the quote reads.

But his adviser Kim Devlin denied he was advocating for armed insurrection.

"Taking a page from such great Americans as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, Congressman Suozzi explained why our founding fathers created the 2nd amendment as a way for citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government that does not follow the rule of law," he said. "To suggest his comments meant anything else or that he was advocating for an armed insurrection against the existing president is both irresponsible and ridiculous."

Suozzi’s remarks are similar to when former Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle said in 2010 people should look to “Second Amendment remedies” if Congress continued to misbehave.

Similarly, in the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump suggested said that if his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton nominated a Supreme Court Justice that that gun rights advocates could be powerless.

“Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know,” he said at the time.

[pcosmar]

Just when you think they don't understand they prove that they do.

Just not for you.

[Swordsmyth]

Of course, he started walking it back almost immediately.

This is a shame, because he is right.

Trump is acting outside the bounds of the constitution, just like Obama, and just like Bush, and just like Clinton and so on and so on and so on.

The regulatory state rules us, at the beck and call of the executive branch, without any representation, outside all constitutional restraints, and daily violating the Bill of Rights in a hundred ways.

The last president to even recognize this was JFK, and we all know what the "deep state" did to him.

Maybe this could be a teaching moment...maybe.





Suozzi Suggests Using the ‘Second Amendment’ on Trump

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/suozzi-suggest-using-second-amendment-trump

Democratic rep’s campaign forwarded a quote from Thomas Jefferson to ‘take arms’ against rulers

Posted Mar 19, 2018 8:06 AM

Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., suggested people take up arms against President Donald Trump. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)

Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi suggested at a town hall that President Donald Trump’s opponents could take up arms against the president.

The New York Democrat was speaking at an event in Huntington, New York, last week and said it was important to put pressure on the president, in a video obtained by the New York Post.

“This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly,” Suozzi said. “Because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

In response, someone in the audience asked what the Second Amendment entails.

“The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms,” he said.

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Chris Martin said the video was “incredibly disturbing.”

“It’s surreal to watch a sitting member of Congress suggest that his constituents should take up arms against the President of the United States,” Martin said.

Suozzi's campaign forwarded a line from Thomas Jefferson advocating for such.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” the quote reads.

But his adviser Kim Devlin denied he was advocating for armed insurrection.

"Taking a page from such great Americans as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, Congressman Suozzi explained why our founding fathers created the 2nd amendment as a way for citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government that does not follow the rule of law," he said. "To suggest his comments meant anything else or that he was advocating for an armed insurrection against the existing president is both irresponsible and ridiculous."

Suozzi’s remarks are similar to when former Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle said in 2010 people should look to “Second Amendment remedies” if Congress continued to misbehave.

Similarly, in the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump suggested said that if his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton nominated a Supreme Court Justice that that gun rights advocates could be powerless.

“Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know,” he said at the time.

The most important thing to remember in such a hypothetical situation is that unless you are ready for a full scale revolution to control the outcome then the replacement and the reaction might be worse.

Leftists always resort to violence but they never consider the consequences.

[Anti Federalist]

The most important thing to remember in such a hypothetical situation is that unless you are ready for a full scale revolution to control the outcome then the replacement and the reaction might be worse.

Leftists always resort to violence but they never consider the consequences.

I'm hoping that someday, people will realize that yours the only outcome, when you have a nation so deeply split, each side heavily armed, and each side absolutely loathing the other side.

Maybe then we can back away from the abyss, have a peaceful secession, and each go our own ways.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm hoping that someday, people will realize that yours the only outcome, when you have a nation so deeply split, each side heavily armed, and each side absolutely loathing the other side.

Maybe then we can back away from the abyss, have a peaceful secession, and each go our own ways.

CALExit gives me hope, we need to be ready with a "let them go!" movement to keep our side from playing Lincoln though.

My worry is that just before their communist paradises collapse they will start a war to steal from us to support their insanity anyway.

[Cleaner44]

CALExit gives me hope, we need to be ready with a "let them go!" movement to keep our side from playing Lincoln though.

My worry is that just before their communist paradises collapse they will start a war to steal from us to support their insanity anyway.

Sooner or later they will be demanding a bailout... and they will get it from the federal government regardless of political parties or anything else. Damn shame. I say let them fail.

[Raginfridus]

Just when you think they don't understand they prove that they do.

Just not for you.

So they do understand what the 2nd's for. They've just made the State so friggin yuuuge a militia can't check it. On purpose... who'da thunk?

[Anti Federalist]

CALExit gives me hope, we need to be ready with a "let them go!" movement to keep our side from playing Lincoln though.

My worry is that just before their communist paradises collapse they will start a war to steal from us to support their insanity anyway.

Start a war or worse yet, a genocide.

[Anti Federalist]

So they do understand what the 2nd's for. They've just made the State so friggin yuuuge a militia can't check it. On purpose... who'da thunk?

We could "check it" tomorrow, if we had the stones to do it.

The highest estimate of Taliban/ISIS/Bin Laden fighters in the field are around 30,000.

30,000 guys in sandals carrying beat up AK47s have got us hemmed up in the Middle East for how many years now?

There are an estimated 100 million gun owners in the US (there are probably a great deal more, but we'll go with that lowball PC number).

If just one percent of those are willing to fight that's guerrilla army of a million people.

[RonZeplin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua-AV3JgAQw

[donnay]

SHOCK VIDEO: Democrat Congressman Suggests Taking Up Arms To Resist POTUS Trump

by Joshua Caplan

In what is the latest instance of violent rhetoric from Democrats, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) suggested to audience members during a speech in Huntington, New York last week that they may have to bear arms to oppose President Trump.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ie5U3nM3FU

“It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the president,” Suozzi told the audience.

“This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

“What’s the Second Amendment?” one audience member then asked.

“The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms,” Suozzi replied.

In a statement to the media, Kim Devlin, an advisor to the Congressman, said his comments were taken out of context.

However, Republicans were not amused.

“This video is incredibly disturbing. It’s surreal to watch a sitting member of Congress suggest that his constituents should take up arms against the president of the United States,” Chris Martin of the National Republican Campaign Committee said.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/shock-video-democrat-congressman-suggests-taking-arms-resist-potus-trump/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

[donnay]

Report: Democrat Rep. Suggests Taking Up Arms Against President Trump

by AWR HAWKINS 19 Mar 2018

Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) reportedly took time during a Huntington, New York, speech to suggest that people should take up arms against President Trump.
Roll Call reports the Suozzi talked of putting pressure on Trump, saying, “This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly. Because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

An audience member responded by asking the essence of the Second Amendment and Suozzi said, “The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.”

According to the New York Post, nervousness was evident among attendees. National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Chris Martin said, “This video is incredibly disturbing. It’s surreal to watch a sitting member of Congress suggest that his constituents should take up arms against the president of the United States.”

The Suozzi campaign responded to the criticism by rejecting claims that he was suggesting “armed insurrection.” At the same time, they forwarded a statement from Thomas Jefferson, which said, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2018/03/19/report-democrat-rep-suggests-taking-up-arms-against-president-trump/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

[Raginfridus]

We could "check it" tomorrow, if we had the stones to do it.

The highest estimate of Taliban/ISIS/Bin Laden fighters in the field are around 30,000.

30,000 guys in sandals carrying beat up AK47s have got us hemmed up in the Middle East for how many years now?

There are an estimated 100 million gun owners in the US (there are probably a great deal more, but we'll go with that lowball PC number).

If just one percent of those are willing to fight that's guerrilla army of a million people.Years, yes. Years of combat.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

https://i.imgflip.com/26q9t2.jpg

[phill4paul]

We could "check it" tomorrow, if we had the stones to do it.

The highest estimate of Taliban/ISIS/Bin Laden fighters in the field are around 30,000.

30,000 guys in sandals carrying beat up AK47s have got us hemmed up in the Middle East for how many years now?

There are an estimated 100 million gun owners in the US (there are probably a great deal more, but we'll go with that lowball PC number).

If just one percent of those are willing to fight that's guerrilla army of a million people.

Remember when that crazy Adam Kokesh had that bat-shit insane idea for a hundred thousand to march into D.C. armed? I do. And I'd have joined it. Still would. If it is ever organized I will be there.

[Anti Federalist]

Remember when that crazy Adam Kokesh had that bat-shit insane idea for a hundred thousand to march into D.C. armed? I do. And I'd have joined it. Still would. If it is ever organized I will be there.

So would I.

[phill4paul]

So would I.

Never happen. Too many too paranoid and still think they've got something to lose. Hell, if you could even get 10k to do it I'd join in. But, I doubt you could get even that.

[Anti Federalist]

Never happen. Too many too paranoid and still think they've got something to lose. Hell, if you could even get 10k to do it I'd join in. But, I doubt you could get even that.

Yup, I know...

[Anti Federalist]

The dinner table argument tonight was, "there was never any talk like this before Trump!"



Trump Just The Latest On Hard Right To Call For ‘2nd Amendment Remedies’

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-second-amendment-people-context

By Tierney Sneed | August 11, 2016 6:00 am

Donald Trump’s remark Tuesday that “the Second Amendment people” might take out a President Hillary Clinton to stop her from appointing liberal Supreme Court justices fits a now-familiar pattern: Trump takes an idea that has been simmering at the fringes of the hard right and shouts it from his platform as the GOP presidential nominee.

His campaign disputed the interpretation that the remark, delivered in Trump’s typical off-the-cuff style, was some sort of call-to-arms or that it alluded to assassination. But scholars who study gun rhetoric in political discourse, as well as gun safety advocates at the front lines of the gun control debate, placed his comment in the context of a long lineage of language pitting gun holders as the last defense against a tyrannical government.


“In anti-government circles, and even in hate group circles, where this idea of ‘Second Amendment remedies’ is not a joke, who knows how that is going to be perceived,” said Ryan Lenz, the editor of Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch blog.

“In reality, in the past, we’ve seen it being perceived as a sizable influx of support and validation for ideologies that, up until this campaign, had no place in mainstream political discourse,” Lenz told TPM.

Trump is no stranger to the gun debate and has hit on hot button issues such as eliminating gun-free zones and suggesting that victims of gun violence would have been able to defend themselves had they been armed. His Tuesday remark came after his usual stump-speech warnings about the type of anti-gun judges he says Clinton would appoint if she was elected.

“If she gets to pick her judges,” Trump said, “nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”

Some, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), have tried to brush off the GOP nominee’s comment as a joke, albeit one that didn’t quite land. Trump has described even his own popularity in violent terms: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” he said at a rally in January.

Those around Trump have also invoked gun violence as a response to his Democratic rival. Al Baldasaro, a Trump advisor and New Hampshire legislator, said last month that Clinton “should be put in the firing line and shot for treason” —a comment Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said the campaign “disagreed” with even as she thanked Baldasaro for his “support.”

This time around, the campaign’s defense of Trump’s “Second Amendment people” line has been all over the place. Some allies say he meant that gun rights supporters would stop Clinton with their votes, others claim he was referring to the formidable lobbying power of the NRA, while some surrogates blamed the line on Trump’s “inarticulate” manner of speaking.

But, like the language Trump has deployed to discuss immigration, “rigged” elections and Muslims, his rhetoric around Clinton and the Second Amendment wasn’t born in a vacuum. Trump is perhaps the most prominent of a series of conservative politicians who’ve toyed with the idea that gun owners may need to resort to violence against an oppressive government.

In 2010, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) posted on social media “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” while pointing to a list of Obamacare-supporting lawmakers.

During her 2014 campaign, freshman Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) said she believed in her right to carry guns to defend herself “whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”

Failed 2010 Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV) warned that “if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.”

And Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (D-FL) congressional challenger in 2009, Republican Robert Lowry, shot at a human-shaped gun range target with Wasserman Schultz’s initials written on it.

Brett Lunceford, a former professor who has researched the political discourse around guns, said these sort of remarks and actions feed into a belief that “the Second Amendment was put in place to overthrow the government if need be.”

“[Trump’s] throwing a bone to that mythology, that, if the government is tyrannical, ‘Well you guys are the ones that can do something about it,’” Lunceford told TPM. “There’s this idea that they’re the ones that can stop tyranny. It’s not about self defense, it’s about defense from the government.”

Gun control advocates say that purveyors of such language take their cues directly from gun industry lobbying groups. Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, pointed to NRA Board member Ted Nugent—who has said President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats should “suck on my machine gun”—and to Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt, who in June said voters may “resort to the bullet box” if they don’t like Supreme Court decisions.

“We have seen the radicalized behavior of the NRA leadership, also impact lawmakers and other gun extremists to speak in rhetoric that is dangerous,” Watts said. “The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact. It’s not a manual for vigilante justice.”

For victims of gun violence themselves, Trump’s comment had a very specific and acute connotation.

“Responsible, stable individuals won’t take Trump’s rhetoric to its literal end, but his words may provide a magnet for those seeking infamy. They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed,” former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) said in a statement with her husband, Mark Giffords.

Giffords was shot in the head in 2011 in an assassination attempt while meeting with constituents in Tucson.

“What political leaders say matters to their followers. When candidates descend into coarseness and insult, our politics follow suit. When they affirm violence, we should fear that violence will follow,” Giffords said in the statement.

[Anti Federalist]

Now, that being said, the Bolshevik left was much more violent in the 1960s and 1970s.

So all that's happening now is a swing back, after multiple politically motivated assassination attempts and so on.

This can be settled in number of ways:

A - The vast muddled middle that stands for nothing and just wants to get back to their burger and ball game rises up and puts the brakes on all of it, leaving us a hollwoed out shell, like much of Europe.

B - Internal war breaks out, violent bloody and utterly destructive, leaving a fascist or communist regime in its wake.

C - Peaceful secession finally sinks in as the only logical solution, and the nation breaks apart.

[Jan2017]

[ stupid video]

The second amendment is not even about arming oneself to overthrow the USA . . . or am I wrong ?


The dinner table argument tonight was, "there was never any talk like this before Trump!"

“If she gets to pick her judges,” Trump said, “nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”

In 2010, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) posted on social media “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” while pointing to a list of Obamacare-supporting lawmakers.

During her 2014 campaign, freshman Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) said she believed in her right to carry guns to defend herself “whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.”
.

[RonZeplin]

The second amendment is not even about arming oneself to overthrow the USA . . . or am I wrong ?







Yes you're wrong, there's nothing about overthrowing the USA in the video I posted. Look again.

We the people are the USA, not prez Trump. It's not at all likely that we'd ever want to overthrow ourselves.

https://i.imgur.com/QQWQoyx.gif

[Jan2017]

Yes you're wrong, there's nothing about overthrowing the USA in the video I posted. Look again.


Don't be so proud of your post - not referring to your video. Don't need to look again.


SHOCK VIDEO: Democrat Congressman Suggests Taking Up Arms To Resist POTUS Trump

by Joshua Caplan

In what is the latest instance of violent rhetoric from Democrats, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) suggested to audience members during a speech in Huntington, New York last week that they may have to bear arms to oppose President Trump.

Second Amendment is not about any individual right to bear arms . . . it is a state rights amendment. Do you understand it yet ?

[Jan2017]

Yes you're wrong, there's nothing about overthrowing the USA in the video I posted. Look again.


Didn't say that proud fool - THE Second Amendment - again talking about the Second Amendment (not YOU)

Please try to understand the Second Amendment before posting stupid Dim or child opinions are offered - (Please - you'll look smarter.)

[RonZeplin]

Didn't say that proud fool - THE Second Amendment - again talking about the Second Amendment (not YOU)

Please try to understand the Second Amendment before posting stupid Dim or child opinions are offered - (Please - you'll look smarter.)

Tench Coxe

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.

Pennsylvania Gazette (http://www.friesian.com/quotes.htm), Feb. 20, 1788.

[Jan2017]

Tench Coxe

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.

Pennsylvania Gazette (http://www.friesian.com/quotes.htm), Feb. 20, 1788.

Great stuff - really. but the case law of the Second Amendment since 1788 is not what most think.

Basically, I'd say what the Second Amendment does - is give the state jurisdiction to decide
whether a 13+1 magazine clip is ok for me in CO . . . but not legal in CA - that is where we're at.

The 2nd Amendment confers a state "militia" - including the arming of private citizens - as a state authority/function - imho.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

[Ender]

Tench Coxe

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.

Pennsylvania Gazette (http://www.friesian.com/quotes.htm), Feb. 20, 1788.

The militia in the 2nd Amendment is referring to all local men, in whatever city/county/state etc, 14 & up, to be able to be armed & protect their community from dangers, including a government gone wrong.

[Jan2017]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua-AV3JgAQw
Ya' see . . . the second amendment is nothing about your posted video - why post bullsh!t (?) Jus' wonderin'

[Jan2017]

Of course, he started walking it back almost immediately.



Again . . .


The second amendment is not even about arming oneself to overthrow the USA . . . or am I wrong ?

[Swordsmyth]

Again . . .

The 2ndA is about the right to keep and bear arms in ALL it's facets INCLUDING PROTECTING YOUR OTHER RIGHTS.

[Jan2017]

The 2ndA is about the right to keep and bear arms in ALL it's facets INCLUDING PROTECTING YOUR OTHER RIGHTS.
Again - I disagree your asserting that the 2ndAmend. includes - "in ALL it's facets" - the right to bear arms against the United States President.
- or is the Dimocrat suggesting a call for state militias to act against the 45th President (?) - jus' want to know the point of the bullsh!t suggestion by the video -and like AF stated in the OP,
the Dim is already backing down 'cause he looks like another dumb idiot that needs to lose their seat in Congress in November.

Time and time again, courts find that the right to bear arms conferred by the Second Amendment
is NOT really an individual's right to bear arms - it is through the state's grant to have citizens armed as protection -
protection to liberty, life, and property and other rights.

Either way, the OP's Dimocrat idea to take down the US President using the 2nd Amendment rights conferred
to the states works jus' how exactly (?)

[shakey1]

The 2ndA is about the right to keep and bear arms in ALL it's facets INCLUDING PROTECTING YOUR OTHER RIGHTS.

... being necessary to the security of a free State

[CCTelander]

Don't be so proud of your post - not referring to your video. Don't need to look again.


Second Amendment is not about any individual right to bear arms . . . it is a state rights amendment. Do you understand it yet ?


Seriously? There's actually some one in the so-called "liberty movement" who actually believes this horseshit? SMGDH

[nikcers]

The second amendment is not even about arming oneself to overthrow the USA . . . or am I wrong ?
Either you are wrong or TJ is wrong.

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

[seapilot]

https://freedomoutpost.com/using-the-third-amendment-in-defense-of-the-second-amendment/



Using The Third Amendment In Defense Of The Second Amendment

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

--Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

Most discussions about the Second Amendment don’t involve the Third Amendment. In fact, most people consider the Third Amendment virtually irrelevant.

However, the Third Amendment is the best argument for the Second Amendment. Whereas the Second Amendment can be massaged, the Third cannot. Consider that “the right to bear arms” has been defined ad absurdum. What is an “arm”? What is it to “bear” arms? Who are the “militia” and who are the “people”? What does “infringed” mean?

Oh sure, we know exactly what the Second Amendment means. Concisely, it is the right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny and fascism. An armed society tends to be a more careful society, perhaps even more polite.

But when the anti-gun crowd speaks of the Second Amendment, they cleverly twist it. To them, an “arm” is a musket, because that’s what the framers shot. To them, an “arm” is a six-shooter, because… well, because they say so. To them, to “bear” arms is to hunt. To them, “militia” applies only to military or police. They think themselves quite logical, even brilliant, though our founders say otherwise.

Whether gun controllers are liars or simply uninformed, they are passionate to control, and sometimes they even get away with legislating against certain types of guns. Bill Clinton was able to get gun control legislation passed in 1994.

However, the Third Amendment isn’t so easy to twist or diminish, and the Third Amendment makes a great case for more guns, and more modern weapons. For if a soldier demands to be quartered in your home, how do you respond? To object to the quartering, you can hold up the Constitution as garlic against a vampire. But in that situation your Constitution is likely to be shredded. You might try yelling for help, but where will that get you? You might try calling the police, but will you make it to the telephone?

To uphold the Third Amendment requires enforcement. To enforce your private property rights you will need some firepower. That’s where your right to bear arms comes into play.

For if a soldier demands to be quartered, your objection must have teeth. At such time, a semi-automatic or automatic weapon makes a good deterrent. It will be an unwise soldier who demands rather than requests quartering in that house.

“But,” the anti-gun ninnies bray, “you are no match for a soldier.”

Perhaps, perhaps not. But you are certainly more of a match with a weapon than without a weapon. Even if you “can’t” win against a soldier, weaponry betters your odds. A soldier who won’t take “no” for an answer will likely respect the sound of an AR.

“But,” the anti-gun communists sputter, “a soldier will be wearing armor anyway.”

Well, that makes a good case for ownership of armor-piercing bullets, doesn’t it? To repel a modern soldier requires modern weaponry. The more advanced a soldier’s technology, the more necessity for equal technology!

“But,” the anti-gun Nazis add, “you can’t fight government tanks and bazookas.”

If our government uses tanks on us, the Third Amendment is the least of our worries. Some might argue, “Why not just let the soldier be quartered?”

First, because we don’t have to. The Third Amendment protects our private property rights. Strangers, even soldiers, may be denied access to your home, as it should be. It doesn’t matter if the soldier is rogue or was commanded to take over your house. A homeowner has the right to use force against governmental home invasions. We have a right to defend our homes against our own military.

Yes, our own military, because there’s no need for an Amendment vs. foreign invaders. There is no argument which can defeat this truth.

Now, if someone wants to voluntarily surrender his home, that’s his business. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to surrender, unless “prescribed by law.”

“Prescribed by law” means according to a manner agreeable to the people. Therefore, the people themselves shall, by majority, decide how to quarter soldiers.

Second, what if a soldier decides not only to quarter, but also to terrorize? Give an inch, take a mile. If I don’t trust a particular soldier in my house, the Third Amendment gives me space. In reality, it doesn’t matter if you trust or don’t trust any particular soldier. You have a right to refuse any soldier entry to your house, for any reason.

Third, what if you are a peacenik who doesn’t believe in waging war? Isn’t forced quartering trampling on your beliefs? Only the statist, not even the liberal, would say no. But again, you don’t need a reason to refuse a soldier entry to your house. The Third Amendment upholds the right of such refusal.

The Third Amendment therefore also upholds the right to adequate weaponry.

The Second Amendment authorizes arms for the people.

The Third Amendment makes clear that “arms” equals “arms adequate to repel soldiers.” The Third Amendment is a fascinating anti-fascist statement.

Our founders are truly to be admired.

[Raginfridus]

Understanding the 2nd might be difficult through google translate.

[Swordsmyth]

... being necessary to the security of a free State


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.

[Swordsmyth]

Again - I disagree your asserting that the 2ndAmend. includes - "in ALL it's facets" - the right to bear arms against the United States President.
- or is the Dimocrat suggesting a call for state militias to act against the 45th President (?) - jus' want to know the point of the bullsh!t suggestion by the video -and like AF stated in the OP,
the Dim is already backing down 'cause he looks like another dumb idiot that needs to lose their seat in Congress in November.

Time and time again, courts find that the right to bear arms conferred by the Second Amendment
is NOT really an individual's right to bear arms - it is through the state's grant to have citizens armed as protection -
protection to liberty, life, and property and other rights.

Either way, the OP's Dimocrat idea to take down the US President using the 2nd Amendment rights conferred
to the states works jus' how exactly (?)
The right of THE PEOPLE is PROTECTED, nothing is conferred.
THE PEOPLE are responsible to secure the free State against enemies foreign and domestic.


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.

[donnay]

There is absolutely no democrat that I have come across that is for the second amendment (in it's original intent) other than making a left-handed remark as this democrat was making at the townhall meeting.

Listen to the video!

The democrats are for gun control, anyone care to point out otherwise?

The kids running around the media circuit from Florida have been exploited by the democrats to make the gun the reason for the tragedy, rather than a mentally ill person the reason for the tragedy.

The democrats NEVER let a tragedy go to waste to push their agenda!

[Madison320]

Second Amendment is not about any individual right to bear arms . . . it is a state rights amendment. Do you understand it yet ?

Wrong. It's an individual right like all the other amendments.

[Ender]

There is absolutely no democrat that I have come across that is for the second amendment (in it's original intent) other than making a left-handed remark as this democrat was making at the townhall meeting.

Listen to the video!

The democrats are for gun control, anyone care to point out otherwise?

The kids running around the media circuit from Florida have been exploited by the democrats to make the gun the reason for the tragedy, rather than a mentally ill person the reason for the tragedy.

The democrats NEVER let a tragedy go to waste to push their agenda!

Also, all mass shootings seem to happen in "Gun Free" zones.

My POV is there is not two parties. The Dems & the Repubs shout different words but end up voting in the same kind of freedom loss, no matter who is supposed to "be in charge".

[Ender]

Wrong. It's an individual right like all the other amendments.

^^THIS^^

[donnay]

Also, all mass shootings seem to happen in "Gun Free" zones.

My POV is there is not two parties. The Dems & the Repubs shout different words but end up voting in the same kind of freedom loss, no matter who is supposed to "be in charge".

A "Gun Free Zone" was given to us by Democrat Joe Biden.

There are some good Republicans so I will disagree that both parties are bad.

[Swordsmyth]

A "Gun Free Zone" was given to us by Democrat Joe Biden.

There are some good Republicans so I will disagree that both parties are bad.

Watch out or tulsa will label you a troll.

Anyone who disagrees with tulsa is a troll

[oyarde]

Is there an address where I can donate a Tomahawk and a box of ammo to the dem politicians in NY for NewYexit ??

[Ender]

A "Gun Free Zone" was given to us by Democrat Joe Biden.

There are some good Republicans so I will disagree that both parties are bad.

There are some good dems, as well.

But as a whole, both parties are all part of TPTB.

To quote a favorite line from The Pirates of Penzance:

"Individually I love you all with affection unspeakable. But collectively I look upon you with what amounts to absolute detestation!"

[donnay]

There are some good dems, as well.

But as a whole, both parties are all part of TPTB.

To quote a favorite line from The Pirates of Penzance:

"Individually I love you all with affection unspeakable. But collectively I look upon you with what amounts to absolute detestation!"


They have been infiltrated by the Globalists to do their bidding. In my experience a good democrat either switches to the republican or the independent party.

As a general rule, democrats are anti-gun.

[Ender]

They have been infiltrated by the Globalists to do their bidding. In my experience a good democrat either switches to the republican or the independent party.

As a general rule, democrats are anti-gun.

Who's got the majority right now?

[donnay]

Who's got the majority right now?

Republicans. One of the other reasons I am all for term limits. No more career politicians.

Would you like me to name the RINOs?

Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Paul Ryan, Lamar Alexander, Thad Cochran, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, John Cornyn...


The Democrats are trying to load up with ex-CIA candidates for mid-term elections.

Deep Blue State: Democrats fielding unprecedented number of ex-CIA candidates
https://www.rt.com/usa/420894-democrats-cia-candidates-midterms/

[Ender]

Republicans. One of the other reasons I am all for term limits. No more career politicians.

Would you like me to name the RINOs?

Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Paul Ryan, Lamar Alexander, Thad Cochran, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, John Cornyn...


The Democrats are trying to load up with ex-CIA candidates for mid-term elections.

Deep Blue State: Democrats fielding unprecedented number of ex-CIA candidates
https://www.rt.com/usa/420894-democrats-cia-candidates-midterms/

I know the obvious RINOS- but behind the curtain, I see only one party- the two party stuff is a deception. JMHPOV.

[Swordsmyth]

There are some good dems, as well.

But as a whole, both parties are all part of TPTB.

To quote a favorite line from The Pirates of Penzance:

"Individually I love you all with affection unspeakable. But collectively I look upon you with what amounts to absolute detestation!"

There aren't ANY "good" Dem politicians.