article 3 section 3 of the Constitution of the United States:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So if anyone is thinking of using their personal firearms against the United States, that is waging war against the United State, it is TREASON. Which is why taking up arms against the United States in prior rebellions has been treason, including the U.S. Civil War when Fort Sumter was fired upon by insurgents.
There is no right to keep arms to oppose the government. There is the right to vote; use it. That is what defines us as a nation of free people.
Oh, you silly anti-everygunintheworldperson! You know that the only time that rule applies is IF the gummint is fairly constituted, duly elected and in agreement with YOUR set of rules. Otherwise it's just a natural consequence of the persecution and oppression I suffer at the hands of ObamaFEMA's nancybooted jackthugs.
ReplyDelete"Sturmgewehr Bushmaster Macht Frei!"
You sir are the one who thinks the laws only apply to your views... It does NOT thankfully. You anti Government Fascist.
DeleteChris Stowell, your comment is confusing.
DeleteI know democommie; he is no anti-government fascist.
Sheesh.
Or if you are referring to the author of the post - Dog Gone - that's madam, not sir.
Saying that there is a "right to rebellion" is a flat out lie.
ReplyDeleteThe catalyst for adopting the Constitution was the fact that Shays' Rebellion shocked the US into realising that there needed to be a strong government or the US would collapse.
Then move on to the purposes stated for adopting the Constitution: forming a more perfect Union, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common
defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity"
Doesn't it run counter to those principles to say that something in the Constitution relates to a "right of rebellion"? Not to mention that right is explicitly ruled out by Article III, Section iii. No where does the Second Amendment explicitly change or repeal that section of the Constitution.
That makes the "insurrectionist theory" of the Second Amendment an absurdity.
We can also eliminate that the Second Amendment might relate to non-governmental purposes since the Constitution addresses "the common defence" (see Article I).
The rebellions which have occurred since 1783 have only shown that the political process is the one which is to be used, not armed force, for changing the US government.