Forum Post: Second Amendment - The Assassination Amendment
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 5, 2012, 7:24 a.m. EST by aahpat
(1407)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
United States Constitution;
Article One, Section Eight:
"The Congress shall have power..."
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America:
"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."
There are those who assert that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to use deadly force against the federal government should they decide that the federal government has slipped into "tyranny". Ron Paul, last week upon the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, said that the bill amounted to the government sliding into tyranny.
So, do Americans have the right, under the Second Amendment, to assassinate members of Congress who voted for the NDAA? Can Americans now assassinate Bark Obama?
Is the Second Amendment a license to assassinate American federal officials and elected leaders?
Would anyone want to be elected to, appointed or hired by the federal government knowing that the Second Amendment is a death writ with their name on it should someone put their name on a list of American government leaders or workers who have become tyrannical?
Let "those who assert that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to use deadly force against the federal government" stand up and be counted. Next find out if they agree with Ron Paul. You may find you're group consists of several dozen individuals living in scrap wood shacks in the woods, or some other obscure minority. If that's the case, then there would be no right to take up arms against the will of the majority.
The Constitution is not the last word in any legal situation, the Constitution is the first word. The idea that the Second Amendment gives anybody the right to assassinate any elected leaders is an idea that appears to stem from the same fallacy that causes people to believe that it's unconstitutional for the government to require a permit for a protest.
Your right.
By definition, to assassinate is to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; Murder premeditatedly and treacherously.
The act of armed rebellion to secure for the people a government of the people, by the people, and for the people does not have at its base treachery.
I do not like the tone of your post. I do not like your innuendo.
I don't like you.
Go find something to do.
"act of armed rebellion" not in the Second Amendment or the United States Constitution. That is a psychotic libertarian rationalization for assassination and armed insurrection against the Constitutional government of the United States of America.
You support insurrection & assassination?
[Removed]
Whether the constitution says it is right or wrong is quite beside the point. Your morals and ethics should tell you it is wrong to kill other human beings. Would you want someone to assassinate you? I think not.
I agree.
Too many libertarians do not.
"Would anyone want to be elected to, appointed or hired by the federal government knowing that the Second Amendment is a death writ with their name on it should someone put their name on a list of American government leaders or workers who have become tyrannical?"
Probably not. So I suggest that the government not become tyrannical, and we won't have a problem....
Who decides "tyrant"?
Don't give me that evasive "we the people' crap. I am talking specifics. Do you decide who is a tyrant? Can I decide who is a tyrant?
If I disagree with you about who you decide is a tyrant can I then consider you a tyrant and exercise my Second Amendment right to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution FROM YOU?
[Removed]
Sure--that's how civil wars generally work....
you are the one perverting the Constitution, nimrod
the Constitution does not give anyone the authority to commit assassination
Libertarians say it does.
Amendment II
Doesn't say anything about granting the right to commit assassination.
Maybe Libertarians should learn how to read
It don't say a word about huntin' rifles either.
Don't hit me. Devils advocate.
I agree.
you are one seriously fucked up individual
you agree that the second Amendment does not grant the right to commit assassination, and yet with your Forum Post you advocate exactly that.
You are deliberately attempting to wind up all the little paulites who have more than one screw loose.
I do kinda hope that clicks and comes right back around to haunt'cha.
I imagine it's just law enforcement, fishing for nutters.
There are policies that prohibit that. If he is, then he is in trouble with his boss.
It's much more likely he is a former government employee working in the private sector - as a private contractor - and probably paid by some rightie with deep pockets.
he is deliberately inciting violence among a specific demographic, and hoping it comes back on the Occupy Movement.
They sell drugs then lock people up for re-selling them. I don't believe they have any rules or moral road blocks. Overstepping law enforcement, war, and overpaid middlemen is why I support the movement.
any member of law enforcement selling drugs is likely either
in trouble for tanking the prosecution on the basis of entrapment
just plain corrupt, and likely to find themselves under IA investigation
Unfortunately it is a common sting practice by law enforcement. Watch practically any Cop's episode they cover these operations all the time. The hope in a lot of this is to get the buyer to turn in their normal supplier. So it's not actually selling drugs but in some places it is a legal form of entrapment.
You need to learn to read for comprehension. It is not I who advocate this. It is libertarians with their 'watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants' rhetoric who are advocating it.
Yes, I am playing with the paulites. It is so easy and so much fun. And in this issue it is necessary, I believe, that people see how crazy they are.
It is important that people understand that the threat of declaring a leader a 'tyrant' has a real impact in coercing and intimidating American political leaders. This shoves our political leaders to the right whether or not that is what the American people want. Political leaders capitulate to the threat of assassination rather than risk the possibility of assassination. So every time a right-winger aggressively advocates the Second Amendment in a public discourse they are shoving the politicians into capitulation to them under threat of assassination.
I didn't write that.
you did.
You are suggesting violence and assassination. It is all in how you phrased the question:
Ron Paul, last week upon the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, said that the bill amounted to the government sliding into tyranny.
So, do Americans have the right, under the Second Amendment, to assassinate members of Congress who voted for the NDAA? Can Americans now assassinate Bark Obama?
I'm sure that is not a typo . . . Bark Obama
It is a suggestion, that the President is nothing more than a dog, one to be put down.
I've seen a ton of this same shit - suggestions that just appear to be in the air
you are the dog, mutherfucker
Oh please! You are doing that right-wing thing of twisting an argument and intentionally mischaracterizing it. I am not going to argue your intentional mischaracterizations of my positions.
you wrote it fool
not me
But it is you who misinterpret it.
sure I did, and you just keep on saying that
what you wrote clearly speaks for itself.
My first line after posting the actual Constitution references: "There are those who assert that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right..."
Learn how to read for comprehension. And stop taking others out of context to make your point. It serves only to make you look like a freakin moron.
Can Americans now assassinate
Obama?
That is a direct copy and paste.
you wrote it. You can eat it.
you dog
That is a direct copy and paste.
you wrote it. You can eat it.
Please stop insulting other users. It's really tiring. Try to use proper arguments and remain civil. Your constant use of profanity makes OWS protesters look really bad.
kiss my ass
Can you at least stop bringing it up? It's over and it's in the past. Wouldn't it be better to just forget about it and move on. It's just a really awful thing to keep talking about. I'm sure you two can find plenty of other things to argue about. Just not that. Please.
I didn't ask him to step into this discussion.
He did that all on his own.
What asshat wrote speaks for itself.
If trashy now wants to defend him, that is his choice. By all means. He is welcome to that position. I don't mind at all.
No I wasn't there. You were the one that told me about. He explained he didn't do that, it was a fake. And I believe him, he would never do anything like that. There were so many fakes using his name in order to get attention. It only makes sense that it was a fake. He would never do that. There have been lots of fakes using others user names around here. You know this. Can you absolutely positively say that it wasn't a fake?
He jumped into something and defended you. He didn't have to do that.
It was him. He was posting a bunch of pics to deface threads and that was one he used.
I really don't care what his sexual preference is - it's clear he isn't a supporter, and is here to disrupt shit. Whatever.
Stop bringing up the pornography thing. It wasn't him. He would never do that and I think deep down you know that.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-face-of-cointel-andor-pysch-ops/#comment-567467
Wrong link: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-face-of-cointel-andor-pysch-ops/#comment-567286
you were there.
you saw what he did.
it wasn't anyone else.
Stop it! He stuck up for you earlier today.
really? I'd like to see that.
He has stated repeatedly that he isn't an Occupy supporter. I am. He choose to step into this discussion.
he is the pink pantied penis poser
what you make of all of that is entirely up to you.
Thrasymaque, or one of his alias cohorts, is likely again at the root of this problem.
why are we continuing to bump this thread?
I'm not defending aahpat at all. I disagree with his position and agree with yours. Reread my comment. I asked that you please stop using profanity and insults when discussing issues. You calling aahpat asshat speaks for itself. You should learn to be an adult, and, no, I don't want to kiss your ass fat.
Don't use ad hominen and your position will be even stronger.
An alliteration. Better.
you are a blatant liar
claiming to be engaged in the process of data collection on behalf of the federal government might be construed as
you might actually be in violation of the law.
and just so you know - those who engage in such data collection
You should try using the Freedom of Information Act
Disgruntled old hippies are so predictable; always indulging in easy and uncreative profanity. Try to use your imagination next time you insult me. What's the point in rehashing boring old lines.
You stop it too. He's not disgruntled. He's just a Democrat. Actually, we're all kind of disgruntled about that.
and you stepped into this discussion
exactly . . .
you pink pantied penis poser
murder should be prosecuted
Being a little radical aren't you .I don't think this movement is about overthrowing this government but changing it back to a government for the people like it was suppose to be. I think you watch too much fox news.
I would jump for joy if government workers got assasinated! It would so make my day, then maybe they would mind their own business, and stay the hell out of mine, a free man.
Yer a sick puppy.
hey they went out of their way to interfere with my life, i didnt do anything to them, i mean i cant own a chicken or a cow on my land, and they are telling me i have to wear a seatbelt when its none of their gd business. in fact seatbelts dont cause accidents, following too close to the car in front of you does, but government workers are so dumb you never see them pull people over for that! I dont need other men to tell me what to do, Im already the only guy on the road with 6-10 car lengths in front of mine, and ive never been in an accident nearly 50 years old, i know i must be a fricking genius! ha
The insurance companies forced the seat belt issue.
They just employed our government to make it so.
Should we now dissolve them for seat belt tyranny?
i think anyman who interferes with another mans freedom should be hung by the neck publically government or any other, because they are not my judge, and good rope is only about $50 and is reusable, but our dumb government workers, tax us up to $50k a year to imprison someone.
That's an odd way of thinking.
It's VERY totalitarian.
It also offered no comment on what I asked.
well i thought the insurance companies could be grouped together with corporations who are buying our politicians making laws to favor them and ignore the 99% of our wishes, was pretty well spoken of already. im not knowledgeable enough about insurance companies to say they need to be dissolved, but i do believe several large banks should be desolved and i can prove why in writing.
Terrorist!
[Removed]
Did you find this crap on the Oathkeepers site?
'Cause that's where it belongs.
Try taking it to the NRA.
I have to ask. What part of peaceful movement are you failing to understand?
"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)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson)
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster
You rationalize assassination
That is unresponsive evasion. It does not address the points I have raised. I
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, 1939)
You rationalize assassination of U.S. political leaders.
That quote is nowhere in the United States Constitution.
The Second Amendment
is not
Cointel op at the very least. I've been telling all you about this guy.
You disavow the Second Amendment?
aaphat is definitely an extremist for the wrong side.
I absolutely and without prejudice agree WITH you, FrogWithWings.
Deflexion is not denial.
Good, we're all glad you make no attempt to deny who and what you actually are.
Libertarian assassin!
I wonder if you and aahpat share the same ISP?
just curious
aahpat wrote:
So, do Americans have the right, under the Second Amendment, to assassinate members of Congress who voted for the NDAA?END--------
No, not until due process is completed and it is proven that the Constitution and the republic for which it stands will fall without it.
Due process equals all citizens to give notice to congress that they will be considered unconstitutional and agains the constitution if they do not convene an Article 5 convention within 45 days of the first notice. People who have taken oaths to defend the constitution from domestic enemies, and take the oath seriously, to join together and use military and civilian justice systems to make inquiry into constitutional civilan government and lawful military authority status. Courts must accomodate this or be working against soldiers seeking to defend the Constitution, constitutionally by protecting life by FIRST putting real effort into making the legal system work.
If that fails, THEN something more drastic is fully lawful and justified.
[Removed]
i thought about this too, and feel its a shame that the authority rests in the states, cause the states is bought out by the feds, we the people need to have some authority, we should make all branches of government report to we the people, and we should establish a "whitewater" army to protect us citizens of their rights, should our government go completely amuck!
[Removed]
MY Second Amendment right to defend my nation from insurrection and assassination by libertarian sociopaths WILL NOT be infringed.
RonPaul - Tyrant -Shoot him?
RonPaul openly opposes and denounces the democratically instituted agencies and institutions of the United States government even though those institutions were created by democratic process. RonPaul then does not respect America's democratically constituted Republic. This makes Ron Paul a tyrant who would impose his libertarian anti democratic form of government on America.
Doesn't the Second Amendment apply here?
Libertarian right to intimidate America's elected leaders with Second Amendment assassination threats shall not be infringed.
2nd Amendment intimidation.
The real goal of libertarian crazies who defend the Second Amendment is to intimidate elected government leaders into doing as the libertarians dictate or face being declared a "tyrant" worthy of Second Amendment assassination.
Libertarians have been using the threat of Second Amendment retribution against our government for decades which is how the government has been shoved to the right in the past few decades.
Libertarians run from 2nd Amendment
They refuse to defend their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that it empowers them to commit armed rebellion against the U.S. government. Including assassination.
2nd Amendment-rebellion license
That is what libertarians try to tell Americans.
Right to assassination shall not be infringed
If you work for or are elected to the federal government and the libertarians declare you a "tyrant' the libertarians then reserve their Second Amendment right to assassinate you. If you uphold your sworn duty, as a law enforcement officer or member of the armed forces, to defend federal elected officials and employees the libertarians assert a Second Amendment right to wage insurrection against you and murder you.
Could you please provide us with your "sources" for the information you just poste.
Read the posts on this thread.
But you see, when the constitution was written, it was discussed, debated and those words were written down.
Somewhere in the past there should be writtings of what you speak of.
Isn't that the basis for the decision on how these words in the constitution should be written?
Libertarian 2nd Amendment: The right to assassination and insurrection against the United States government or its elected or appointed leaders shall not be infringed.
Libertarian right to assassination
I want your ISP
Libertarians can't refute me so they want to hack me. LOL!
I don't wanna hack you, __fool*__
I just wanna know where you live . . .
You want to know where I live. Why?
WoW!!! This is one seriously screwed-up post. To even suggest what you do in talking about the 2nd amendment is SOoooooooo WROooong!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps you didn't mean what it seems you are suggesting. If so perhaps you want to rethink your presentation, edit it, and resubmit with an apology.