How is this countenanced by Repubs?

Falling back on the "nothingburger" defense when a Repub member of Congress suggests gun violence against Dems is an unbelievably dangerous trend.

“Ultimately the truth is it’s our Second Amendment rights, our right to bear arms, that protects Americans and give us the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. And I hate to use this language but Democrats, they’re exactly — they’re doing exactly what our founders talked about when they gave us the precious rights that we have.”

“And you know, no one wants violence and I say all the time I am not a violent person. I hope to never see a civil war in this country (wink) and that’s why you hear me toss around ‘national divorce.’ The federal government has grown so big and the Democrats are willing to use the power of the federal government, that it really violates people’s rights and that’s why state rights are so important. It’s a shame, we shouldn’t think that way, but I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, but we always have to make sure that we are defending our Second Amendment rights and making sure that our state rights are protected.”

 

I agree. What does that have to do with my post?

 

None of those things apply to you. All of them are being done by the US Congress or your local government and you are represented in each and all of them. If you don't like what is being done to you then you have several means of redress available. You can communicate with any part of your government in several different ways. Hell, you can become a part of that government if you want. This is America, we rule ourselves but ruling involves effort.

 

You think that mean this meme falls under "behavior coming from public officials that should not be tolerated?"

Is that meme an "outrageous, previously unacceptable act?"

 

The Second Amendment does not create a right of revolution against tyranny. That inherent right is universal. As stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. The Universal Declaration was influenced by the Declaration of Independence, thanks in part to the US delegation led by Ambassador Eleanor Roosevelt (who carried her own handgun for protection).

The Second Amendment does, however, reinforce the rule of law and anti-tyranny structure of the US Constitution, by ensuring the government cannot disarm the people. In the 2008 case (District of Columbia v. Heller), all nine Justices agreed that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for service in the militia.

Why did the founding generation believe that a well-regulated militia was necessary? One reason, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

Democratic Vice President and Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the congressional leader of the civil rights movement, expressed a similar sentiment. For three decades after World War II, he was the embodiment of a liberal Democrat. In 1960, Humphrey wrote:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny, which historically has proved to be always possible."

So Greene isn't the first person to recognize and repeat what has been said over and over by political leaders.
And just because she brings it to the attention of those who lean toward a government of tyranny, doesn't mean she indorses a rebellion.

 

Yes, since it promotes the idea of civil war.

 

I'm beginning to think you're expressing egregiously erroneous beliefs just to see if I'll catch them.

Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

 

Tyranny as in seating the loser of a national election as prez? It's the height of irresponsibility to ludicrously accuse Biden of tyranny for trying to save lives. Worse still, to imply gun rights would play a role in a political struggle against Dems deserves nothing less than censure.

 

Thats not what I stated. I didn't claim how they voted. I claimed on what they agreed between them.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess guns for self-defense purposes. Instead, the most natural reading of the the Amendment is that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes but does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons. Justice Stevens argued that the Amendment states its purpose specifically in relation to state militias and does not address the right to use firearms in self-defense

They all agreed that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for service in the militia.
Thats what I posted

 

Nobody claimed that. If you're going to just make up what someone stated, there is no discussion for that.

 

Promotes it?

Not only can the left not meme, they can't even understand them.

 

I just did.

 

Yes. Anything else?

 

Thats right, you just made it up.
Thanks for clearing that up for everyone

 

Laughable.

 

I quoted what they claimed.
You can't dispute it.
So now its on to laughable?
Nice try but your made up ideas of what everyone thinks ain't cuttin it.
Sorry

 

Read Breyer's dissent and get back to me.

 

You just cannot accept that the framers and founders were not forming a culture or type of world. The type of government they wanted was predicated only on protecting individual liberty and inalienable rights, given that they knew government had to do some things. It was not related whatsoever with the type of society or culture existed, how economically we were doing, what technology we had or might have, what wars we fought or might fight, or anything else. For instance they established an army and a navy; do you think they would have done anything different if they started today?? But, feel free to believe what you will.

 

This describes the Democrat party to a tee! Is that what you meant?

 

Absolutely there are Progressive Democrats who fit this description just like the Trump and secessionist Republicans.

 

If you think the government they created was not based on the customs and norms of their day, I'm not sure what to tell you. The technology we have, the wars we've been involved in, all of this and more are part of what makes our time unique to us, and the events of their day what made their time unique to them. Using your example, having an army and a navy was just as common back then as it is today, so in that respect they would likely repeat this same process. A free press is just as important today as it was back then, as well as protecting religion, assembly, and speech is. They would likely mirror these things if they were creating the Constitution today.

On the flip side of that, women's suffrage and slavery was apparently not important to them, because it was not important to the folks of their day. That's why it took about 75 years to be rid of slavery, and longer still for women to vote. If the framers were alive today, do you think they would have still denied freedom to slaves and the right to vote to women? Of course not. Because that's not how we do things today, but it WAS how they did things back then. The 2nd amendment may likely be different today too since a standing militia is hardly necessary for the protection of the country since we have a large professional military. The types of weapons we have available today and the ease they can make killing people could have influenced what they felt was reasonable for folks to have in their homes as well.

The framers were intelligent folks, for the most part, but they weren't super geniuses and they didn't come up with their ideas in a vacuum. Their thinking was a product of their time, just like the thinking we have today that guides government is a product of our time.

 

You mean the part where he says
I agree with Justice Stevens, and I join his opinion.
Next

 

The colonists could also communicate with the king...

 

What are the differences between WWII and the war on terror e.g. with the war of 1812 and the Tripoli pirates e.g. that would have caused the framers to write a different constitution?

The framers and founders were strongly serious about slavery and it was strongly opposed my the majority of the framers and discussed vehemently by everybody. The only reason they didn't do away with slavery was that was the only way that four or so states would have formed the union and they felt correctly that forming the union took priority at least for the time being (they did put in future limitations at least). I think they would do the same thing today with the same circumstances, although that is purely hypothetical because we would not look anywhere within light years as we do today without that choice back in the 1700s). You are correct that they did not concern themselves much with women suffrage (other than John Adams having to listen to Abigail berate him over it) but then again slavery and women's suffrage are two entirely different things: women had all the same rights as men with one exception; slaves had no rights.

The fundamental purpose of the 2nd amendment is in the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The militia and state security part, while suffering from poor grammar, is just an example.

IMO the one thing I believe they would do differently today is put in check and balances for the supreme court. They might also constitutionalize the two-term president limit, and just slightly possibly put in term limits on representatives