With All The Guns In America Is The Country Destined For Revolt?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

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.

"security of a free state" can be logically extended to mean free from oppression from their own elected govetnment

our founders made clear in their own debates and speeches that they meant it to be an individual right. the supreme court has repeatedly affirmed this and only the most ignorant among us insist that the militia clause means otherwise. The founders and framers are on record stating that the use of arms was also meant to be a deterrence to our own government becoming oppressive and as a last recourse to be a remedy in the event it does. Additionally; there was no formal militia at the time the bill of rights was created and ratified. the unenrolled militia was considered by the framers as the entire (male) citizenry of fighting age and of sound mind and body.

the liberals here unanimously base the doctrine of separation of church and state on one paragraph of one letter by one founder in contraindication of many many other statements letter and actions by the founders. There are volumes of supporting documents on what the 2nd amendment means to the founders and framers; yet the same is ignored by anti gun rights (mostly libs) here.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

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.

"security of a free state" can be logically extended to mean free from oppression from their own elected govetnment

our founders made clear in their own debates and speeches that they meant it to be an individual right. the supreme court has repeatedly affirmed this and only the most ignorant among us insist that clause means otherwise. The founders and framers are on record stating that the use of arms was also meant to be a deterrence to our own government becoming oppressive and as a last recourse to be a remedy in the event it does. Additionally; there was no formal militia at the time the bill of rights was created and ratified. the unenrolled militia was considered by the framers as the entire (male) citizenry of fighting age and of sound mind and body.



the liberals here unanimously bases the doctrine separation of church and state on one paragraph of one letter by one founder in contraindication of many many other statements letter and actions by the founders. There are volumes of supporting documents on what the 2nd amendment means to the founders and framers; yet the same is ignored by anti gun rights (mostly libs) here.

Dont make it a liberal conservitive issue, its about being able to revolt or not reguardless of your political dispositions.

There are plenty of revolutionary minded liberals as well as conservatives and the blame game just sets folks spinning on the the whell of change blinded and victimised by pride.

We are all in this together, and will reap the same future wether liberal or conservative.

I know quite a few liberal gun nuts as well as conservative . . . . . .

the thing about armed revolt or resistance is that there is a razor thin edge between being a patriot and being a criminal/terrorist or whatever. there was only about a ten percent minority of british colonists that supported revolution. Even then had the war went differently the patriots would have been criminals and be reviled by everybody from then on. Tim McVeigh with his evil act thought he was some kind of patriot. he murdered innocent men women and children on top of government agents and service people. even if he had managed to only kill government affiliated people he would have still been a monster. he had next to no support let alone the paltry ten percent the founders had. he was wrong. monsterously wrong.

The above is not to be construed as meaning since the victors write the history books the loser is a villain. or the winner a saint. it's more complex than that.

more than just being the victor you have to be morally and ethically right, the foe must be morally and ethically wrong; there must be no effective legal means of effecting change (either voting or protest and petitioning for redress or via courts and persuasive arguments) and you cannot transgress common decency. if your insurrection cannot meet those requirements and cannot win a contest of war then armed rebellion is not going to be considered legitimate and you will go down in history as a villain as you should.

that is why premature rhetoric about armed rebellion plays into the hands of the forces arrayed against you. *if* the time comes for that it will come at the proper time and have the proper momentum and popular backing even if it's a ten percent minority. In the meantime talk of armed rebellion or of preparing for it comes off as crazy or at the very least can be used for propaganda spin and justification for laws and penalties and further acts based on the need to stop the crazies before they act on their delusions and hurt people.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

the liberals here unanimously base the doctrine of separation of church and state on one paragraph of one letter by one founder in contraindication of many many other statements letter and actions by the founders. There are volumes of supporting documents on what the 2nd amendment means to the founders and framers; yet the same is ignored by anti gun rights (mostly libs)

The government uses/misuses a doctrine called "The Exclusionary Rule " to do something the Constitution does not allow.

This "Exclusionary Rule " puts religious power in the hands of the government where it was never intended. It puts limits on the people and not on the government as intended by Amendment 1. Amendment 1 is intended as a limit on government not on the people.

The "Exclusionary Rule" is an Occult Talmudic rule which allows the government the ability to discriminate in matters of religion where it was not intended.

Separation of Church and State is to prevent the government from returning to Absolute Power by taking advantage of religion..the mix of religion and state...church and state as was so often done in Europe. From Returning to "Divine Right of Kings."

People were to be able to practice their religion and government was to stay out of it and not get into bed politically as was done in Europe...in their forms of government...in order to secure for Government Absolute Power or Divine Right of Kings.

In case some of you do not know the history ...in Europe ..the Crown on the heads of Kings was so often put on them by the Religious Authority. Therefore the Kings power was from God..and the King could not be held to the standard of law as was everyone else. The kings could make or break any law and not be held accountable by men. This was the nature of Absolute power/Divine Right of Kings.

This is the reason for Separation of Church and State...not to limit the people in their religion but to limit government excesses/mischief.






Furthermore if you read the first ten Amendments...you notice that they are all limits on government ...not on the people.


Government shall not...shall not be infringed...shall not...shall make no law...etc ..etc etc...all clearly limits on government and not limits on the people.

What has happened over the years is continuous commentary's...supreme court rulings ...comments allowing the government to modify and by this modification to limit the people and not the government.

This is how government has over the years broken free of the chains of the Constitution. They go by these new rulings, interpretations, commentaries...not by the Constitution. This is also why it is so important for political parties to stack the court system with their hand picked people..to be able to slip the chains of the Constitution.

The Exclusionary Rule allows the government to do precisely what was never intended by the founders.

They are trying to make Exclusionary Rules for the 2nd Amendment in order to get around it.

The first 10 Amendments are all limits on the government not on the people. This was what was intended by the founders. For they warned us not to trust the government because of the natural tendency of men..even educated men to mischief...but to check up on them.

Orangetom

With the second amendment you have no groups that could run a revolt that would not violate the constitution because it would be unconstitutional.
The second amendment protects the American peoples rights as a whole.

Any group that tried to revolt would run into a group that supported the constitution.

Oath keepers.???

a reply to: ANNED

I don't think so. Particularly if you have spent a generation educating the young to not think ..but to emote.
That their emotions and self indulgence are what is true and correct.

If you have not given them enough informations by which to think but only given them enough to feel guilty and ashamed of who and what they are.Guilt programming...guilt conditioning. And that the solution to this is more government.
Dumbing them down.


This is called a television and movie education..which is much of what much of public education has become.

These so called man on the street question and answer sessions are verification of this dumbing down.

Many of today's generation know more about a the latest product coming down the de evolutionary pipeline...or what program is on the tube or movie circuit...verses who and what they are.


.02,

Orangetom

originally posted by: orangetom1999
a reply to: stormbringer1701

the liberals here unanimously base the doctrine of separation of church and state on one paragraph of one letter by one founder in contraindication of many many other statements letter and actions by the founders. There are volumes of supporting documents on what the 2nd amendment means to the founders and framers; yet the same is ignored by anti gun rights (mostly libs)

The government uses/misuses a doctrine called "The Exclusionary Rule " to do something the Constitution does not allow.

This "Exclusionary Rule " puts religious power in the hands of the government where it was never intended. It puts limits on the people and not on the government as intended by Amendment 1. Amendment 1 is intended as a limit on government not on the people.

The "Exclusionary Rule" is an Occult Talmudic rule which allows the government the ability to discriminate in matters of religion where it was not intended.

Separation of Church and State is to prevent the government from returning to Absolute Power by taking advantage of religion..the mix of religion and state...church and state as was so often done in Europe. From Returning to "Divine Right of Kings."

People were to be able to practice their religion and government was to stay out of it and not get into bed politically as was done in Europe...in their forms of government...in order to secure for Government Absolute Power or Divine Right of Kings.

In case some of you do not know the history ...in Europe ..the Crown on the heads of Kings was so often put on them by the Religious Authority. Therefore the Kings power was from God..and the King could not be held to the standard of law as was everyone else. The kings could make or break any law and not be held accountable by men. This was the nature of Absolute power/Divine Right of Kings.

This is the reason for Separation of Church and State...not to limit the people in their religion but to limit government excesses/mischief.






Furthermore if you read the first ten Amendments...you notice that they are all limits on government ...not on the people.


Government shall not...shall not be infringed...shall not...shall make no law...etc ..etc etc...all clearly limits on government and not limits on the people.

What has happened over the years is continuous commentary's...supreme court rulings ...comments allowing the government to modify and by this modification to limit the people and not the government.

This is how government has over the years broken free of the chains of the Constitution. They go by these new rulings, interpretations, commentaries...not by the Constitution. This is also why it is so important for political parties to stack the court system with their hand picked people..to be able to slip the chains of the Constitution.

The Exclusionary Rule allows the government to do precisely what was never intended by the founders.

They are trying to make Exclusionary Rules for the 2nd Amendment in order to get around it.

The first 10 Amendments are all limits on the government not on the people. This was what was intended by the founders. For they warned us not to trust the government because of the natural tendency of men..even educated men to mischief...but to check up on them.

Orangetom

i am aware of the reason for the separation clause but it was not to create the state we have now. how do i know? because of the acts of the first congress and the letter and speeches and acts of the founders.

They bought bibles printed the first editions of domestically printed bibles, created the blue reader for schools and many other things. They openly prayed in offices, speeches, congress and courts; Their buildings and monuments have hidden in them religious images and engraved prose. Their letters boldly proclaimed christian references and inspirations. E.G; only a moral people based on judeo-christian principles would be able to be governed by democratic government.

it goes on an on example after example. and the modern understanding of the separation clause comes from one paragraph of one letter which was meant to assure the Danbury baptists it was addressed to that the government would not have official religion upon which citizenship and the goodwill of the government depended on their being a member of. most of the rest of the letter would not support the modern jurisprudential view of church and state. in fact the whole body of the written record of the founders and their government show it ( the modern stare decisis view) was a decision rife with farce and prejudice.

Besides that; i was mostly contrasting the reverence of the same people for one paragraph of written expository text taken as support for their desired outcome with the disdain of the far more voluminous written record for the second amendment which they despise.

We are not being dealt fairly with here.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

i am aware of the reason for the separation clause but it was not to create the state we have now. how do i know? because of the acts of the first congress and the letter and speeches and acts of the founders.

Quite right here stormbringer...quite right.

I just happen to know the history going back to the Mischief which went on in Europe and other nations when men get absolute power and also mix religion and state as a means of gaining absolute perpetual power or "Divine Right of Kings."

It was Oliver Cromwell who put Divine Right of Kings to rest in 1649 when he put King Charles on the scaffold and cut off his head for treason. After this ...no King of England dared to claim divine right.

But Cromwell also did one other important thing for us as Yanks. Cromwell established a precedent for us here in America that when a King had broken the law..as Charles 1st had broken the Magna Carta by levying his own tax..when the Magna Carta stated tat only parliament can levy a tax. That a Kings power was not absolute and a king could be held accountable for breaking the law. A King was only an administrator of Just English Law.

And by knowledge of this history our Founders here knew that the historical precedent had been set by Cromwell..that a people could turn on their King. A king was not divine right..and could be held accountable.

And Charles 1st tried to hold to that stance throughout his trial ..that he could not be held to the law and tried by the common people..because his power was absolute. His crown was put on him by the religious authority in the Church of England. For the Church and State were one until 1649.

This history in addition to the history of many nations and empires and the connection to absolute power through religioin is what our founders knew and weighed into their decision to separate these powers.

The very words.."Mr. President " by George Washington are a rejection of this template of divine right kings and absolute power through religion in the hands of one man.


As a sidelight...I would also like to state that I have had the privilege some years ago of reading a thin book written at the turn of the 20th century in the olde fine print. It was Titled Separation of Church and State in Virginia.

While it was difficult to read because of the olde fine print..it was indeed an eye opener as to what was going on in the colonies before the founding of this nation. Not only in Virginia..but in the other states as well. Some of them desiring through the influence of dominating churches to establish church influence over government and have that church as the official state church. This was tried in many of the early colonies. I was quite surprised by this revelation about a the early colonies.
Indeed..there was a lot of debate on this topic among the various colonies and eventually the states.

As to the Danbury Baptists...are you referring to Thomas Jefferson's letter to them written around 1800 or so??
I am aware of it but it has been many years since I have read it.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Some branches of the military may also join the revolt, it is a big uncertainty in my opinion.

Is a revolt possible yes.

I think a false flag revolt may also occur to end the 2nd amendment once and for all.

If there is a small war for a few years, it gives the victors new cause to rewrite laws as they see fit after all the shooting is done.

a reply to: Poppcocked

Ask the NSA and Rakshasa(bios level) how anonymous you are...

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: orangetom1999

Well said and well proven by Charlotte Iserbyt whose family was part of the dark cabal
that Orwell tried to warn the world about.

Deliberate dumbing down of America

They will just drug up some more Scopolamine MK Ultra meat bots
and have some more mass shootings and get the sheeple to beg for
gun confiscation, unless they can stir up a race war first.

They have multiple plans going in case one doesn't work out or some
other pesky figure like JFK, RFK, MLK, Terrence Yeakey, Michael Hastings,
John Lennon, comes along to expose their "business as usual" divide and rule methods.

They HATE Unity with a deep passion, and fear it too...

As Huxley said they find great irony in letting us pick our tyranny through
their Problem, Reaction, Solution mechanism.

( got to love Mercedes making a commercial telling us their cars don't blow up )

We know guys, were used to our "heroes" being offed by our government.

Scopolamine

www.rense.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Revolt? In America? Anybody who thinks this is a feasible option hasn't taken into consideration what kind of weapons the military and police have. Sure, you have some powerful guns, but in comparison to what they have you might as well be using slingshots. The only way this would be possible is if the military and police were part of the revolt. But this is also a very unlikely scenario, as people who are being paid well will usually turn a blind eye to corruption. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

As the decades went by we all let the government gain too much power and didn't say anything about it. We're paying for it now.

originally posted by: Ex_MislTech
They will just drug up some more Scopolamine MK Ultra meat bots and have some more

mass shootings and get the sheeple to beg for gun confiscation unless they can stir up

a race war first. They have multiple plans going in case one doesn't work out or some

other pesky figure like JFK, RFK, MLK, Terrence Yeakey, Michael Hastings, John Lennon,

comes along to expose their "business as usual" divide and rule methods.



As Huxley said they find great irony in letting us pick our tyranny through

their Problem, Reaction, Solution mechanism.



( got to love Mercedes making a commercial telling us their cars don't blow up )



We know guys, were used to our "heroes" being offed by our government.



en.wikipedia.org...



en.wikipedia.org...



en.wikipedia.org...

Well would you say the end result is the end of the second amendment?

No guns means no revolt in my opinion. . . .

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

"Well would you say the end result is the end of the second amendment? "

They will let it go either way, shooting civil war they will demonize and
marginalize the veterans as seen in the Orwellian MIAC report naming
former vets and ron paul supporters as domestic terrorists.

They always hedge their bets, they always have a plan B or C.

They love to use Machiavellian methods to point two of their enemies at each other.

en.wikipedia.org...

Minorities vs. the white sled dog neo serfs, while they park $32 trillion offshore
and laugh their backsides off at us.

www.marketoracle.co.uk...

Take the guns then extend the tyranny as other gun grabber tyrannys have done around
the world in the last 100 years then mass murder 10's of millions.

All they have to do to get the US to go the same as Australia is "Manufacture Consent"

en.wikipedia.org...

All they need to do is use the "Operation Mockingbird Media" ( its still in effect under a new new perhaps ? )

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: deadeyedick
"The problem is that all groups and such always get infiltrated.
That is how the founders knew this day we are speaking of would come."

Yeah the founders said we would fall from within, and former KGB agent
Yuri Bezmenov warned us how it was being done, but he went largely ignored.

Yuri Bezmenov's warning

Oddly also Hillary told us who is doing it...

Hillary says CFR runs the puppets on the Potomac

originally posted by: Ex_MislTech
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
"Well would you say the end result is the end of the second amendment? "
They will let it go either way, shooting civil war they will demonize and
marginalize the veterans as seen in the Orwellian MIAC report naming
former vets and ron paul supporters as domestic terrorists.
They always hedge their bets, they always have a plan B or C.
They love to use Machiavellian methods to point two of their enemies at each other.
en.wikipedia.org...
Minorities vs. the white sled dog neo serfs, while they park $32 trillion offshore and laugh their backsides off at us.
www.marketoracle.co.uk...
Take the guns then extend the tyranny as other gun grabber tyrannys have done around the world in the last 100 years then mass murder 10's of millions.
All they have to do to get the US to go the same as Australia is "Manufacture Consent"
en.wikipedia.org...
All they need to do is use the "Operation Mockingbird Media" ( its still in effect under a new new perhaps ? )
en.wikipedia.org...

So there are multiple scenarios for the end of the second amendment . . . .

Interesting to say the least, I forsee guns being outlawed at some point in the future in order to avoid a revolt.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord
"So there are multiple scenarios for the end of the second amendment . . . .

Interesting to say the least, I forsee guns being outlawed at some point in the future in order to avoid a revolt. "

The really odd part is this is most likely to happen by the
government and other groups manufacturing it.

They will get the public begging for guns to be banned.

They know that the human mind is easier to manipulate
in a state of fear.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord
"So there are multiple scenarios for the end of the second amendment . . . .

Interesting to say the least, I forsee guns being outlawed at some point in the future in order to avoid a revolt. "

The really odd part is this is most likely to happen by the
government and other groups manufacturing it.

They will get the public begging for guns to be banned.

They know that the human mind is easier to manipulate
in a state of fear.

originally posted by: Ex_MislTech
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

"So there are multiple scenarios for the end of the second amendment . . . .



Interesting to say the least, I forsee guns being outlawed at some point in the future in order to avoid a revolt. "



The really odd part is this is most likely to happen by the

government and other groups manufacturing it.



They will get the public begging for guns to be banned.



They know that the human mind is easier to manipulate

in a state of fear.

Thats what false flags and mass media could be used for I guess, paint gun owners as terrorists of some sort.

Austrailia handed in thier guns rather easily. . . . . . . . . . . .