Ted Cruz's defense of the 2nd Amendment

[Blake]

... there are ridiculous arguments against gun control, perhaps the silliest of which is*that the framers of the Constitution wanted to preserve the possibility, or even encourage the idea, of armed rebellion against the government. It’s a particularly absurd argument when it comes from a member of Congress who is running for president.

"The Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice,” said one of those people, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. “It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty.”

So Mr. Cruz says people should own guns so they can shoot him if he gets out of hand as a senator or in the extremely unlikely event that he becomes president? Doing so, under any circumstances, would be a hideous crime and Mr. Cruz would be at the front of the line demanding that the shooter be executed...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2015/04/17/ted-cruzs-strange-gun-argument/?_r=0&referrer=


Lol smh fuck if this nut were to ever get into the white house. It's bad enough he's a senator from lol Texas

[CosmicCowboy]

Uhhh...I think pretty much the same thing was said by some of the founders of the country. Of course the ordinary citizens are pretty outgunned now.

[spursncowboys]

Lol smh fuck if this nut were to ever get into the white house. It's bad enough he's a senator from lol Texas
Once again here is the video
YNRc9mJKYa4
you may disagree with him. but to make this view as crazy only hurts your point, and shows you as closed minded or stupid. I, like cosmiccowboy, agree.

[Blake]

I quoted a word for word email sent out by Cruz to supporters. Those words made sense in the late 1700s. But not today.

My point stands that he's a crazy dumb ass that would scare the shit out of me if he gets to the white house.

[spursncowboys]

I changed my mind.

[Blake]

Once again here is the video
YNRc9mJKYa4
you may disagree with him. but to make this view as crazy only hurts your point, and shows you as closed minded or stupid. I, like cosmiccowboy, agree.

Ok, watched the YouTube.

"our rights don't come from government, they come from God"

"we need guns for that ultimate check against government tyranny"

Yeah, he's fucking bat shit looney.

[spursncowboys]

Ok, watched the YouTube.

"our rights don't come from government, they come from God"

"we need guns for that ultimate check against government tyranny"

Yeah, he's fucking bat shit looney.

Seriously? Unalienable rights? That's from the declaration of independence. Once again, Cuomo, you could disagree but there's nothing crazy about that.

[spursncowboys]

I know he had the caricature of crazy. But lately he's done a great job of explaining his beliefs.

[Th'Pusher]

Seriously? Unalienable rights? That's from the declaration of independence. Once again, Cuomo, you could disagree but there's nothing crazy about that.
It's bullshit pandering. The guy is a phony as they come. It amuses me that you can't see that.

[Th'Pusher]

And :lol @ guns.com

[spursncowboys]

It's bullshit pandering. The guy is a phony as they come. It amuses me that you can't see that.
Why does that amuse you? Do you smirk at your computer screen, thinking how these peons don't understand the complexities of politicians wanting to get elected? How your intellect is so vastly superior?
Is Hilary less phony? Oh wait. I bet you're one of those Elizabeth Warren is the real deal? Umarite?

[ChumpDumper]

Aw, SnC found himself a hero.

[boutons_deux]

As usual, you fun fellators TOTALLY ignore the historical context, reasoning that went into the 2nd Amendment, and distort it, as you are duped, dictated by the gun industry, which doesn't give a fuck about rights, only about profits.

Krazy Kruz is a purely evil demagogue. He will NEVER be US President, but he will, with all y'all Texians ignorant compliance, hinder, destroy PROGRESS and the remnants of US democracy.

[Slutter McGee]

The historical context is a check on government power. There is a big difference between advocating open rebellion against the government, which Cruz is not doing, and recognizing that an armed populace is a check on government power, which he is doing.

I have a lot of problems with Cruz, but I'd vote for him in a heart beat just to see the liberal tears and anger. That being said, I don't think he has any real chance at all.

Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

The historical context is a check on government power.

typical gun industry/NRA/GOA bullshit, 2nd amendment was to arm militias in the absence of an established govt standing military to fight EXTERNAL threats, not threats from the govt itself.

[Slutter McGee]

typical gun industry/NRA/GOA bullshit, 2nd amendment was to arm militias in the absence of an established govt standing military to fight EXTERNAL threats, not threats from the govt itself.

Go do some research boutons. To be fair, I don't hold up the founding father's words to be perfection. They are just men and I have no problem with anybody who disagrees. What you said above in regards to external threats is also right, but you can't just pretend that it was not also a check on government power.

"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."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

[boutons_deux]

The historical context is a check on government power.

typical gun industry/NRA/GOA bullshit, 2nd amendment was to arm militias in the absence of an established govt standing military to fight EXTERNAL threats, not threats from the govt itself. Threats like the Enlish, French, Spanish, Indians.

A major thrust of the Constitution was to increase, strengthen the authority of the federal govt, to overcome the weaknesses of the unworkable Articles of Confederation. Only ignorant assholes would think the FF would write a Constitution that would ARM the populace to fight against the central govt they were establishing.

[Slutter McGee]

Only ignorant assholes would think the FF would write a Constitution that would ARM the populace to fight against the central govt they were establishing.

Umm, that is exactly what they did because they feared a tyrannical government in the future.


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in 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 band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Read the name of the work. I mean, I can pull a you on this subject and just pull quotes out my ass all day. The difference between my copypasta and yours is that I am quoting people who helped write the fucking document and establish the federal government.

Slutter McGee

[CosmicCowboy]

Boutons head would explode if he had to get actual information from anything other than his left wing RSS feeds.

[ElNono]

This is a guy that voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act, a law that enabled Big Gov to keep tabs on every citizen's activity, on top of providing all sorts of legalese to deny any kind of basic legal rights to "enemy combatants".

And you can bet your ass any kind of "armed uprising" by any group will be labeled as a "terror act" on the spot.

I've always been supportive of the 2nd amendment, so it's difficult to understand why Ted doesn't put his votes where his mouth is. IIRC, Rand Paul did, at least in shutting down the NSA spy program.

Maybe it isn't that difficult. He's an integral part of that federal government he alleges to despise after all.

[spursncowboys]

This is a guy that voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act, a law that enabled Big Gov to keep tabs on every citizen's activity, on top of providing all sorts of legalese to deny any kind of basic legal rights to "enemy combatants".

And you can bet your ass any kind of "armed uprising" by any group will be labeled as a "terror act" on the spot.

I've always been supportive of the 2nd amendment, so it's difficult to understand why Ted doesn't put his votes where his mouth is. IIRC, Rand Paul did, at least in shutting down the NSA spy program.

Maybe it isn't that difficult. He's an integral part of that federal government he alleges to despise after all.
I don't know where he's said he despises the federal govt.

[ElNono]

I don't know where he's said he despises the federal govt.

Really? Lambasting "Washington" isn't Ted's favorite past time?

[TheSanityAnnex]

typical gun industry/NRA/GOA bullshit, 2nd amendment was to arm militias in the absence of an established govt standing military to fight EXTERNAL threats, not threats from the govt itself.


"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"

"No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both"


"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 usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."



I could on and on with these quotes specifically stating the right to bear arms was to give the people a means to check a tyrannical government.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Cruz is crazy but what a terrible example used by Blake to try and show he's crazy. Cruz actually got the bolded part right. Smh Blake.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Militia movements have fared so well against law enforcement and the national guard. Small arms aren't going to stop a local sheriff much less what the feds have. This is not 1783, dumbfucks. The South will rise again!

[CosmicCowboy]

Militia movements have fared so well against law enforcement and the national guard. Small arms aren't going to stop a local sheriff much less what the feds have. This is not 1783, dumbfucks. The South will rise again!

So? How does that change the intent of the founding fathers?

[CosmicCowboy]

Funny how those afghani savages with small arms and improvised explosives have fared against the most advanced military the world has ever seen.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So? How does that change the intent of the founding fathers?

The intent is meaningless given modern reality.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Funny how those afghani savages with small arms and improvised explosives have fared against the most advanced military the world has ever seen.

What military engagement have they won? While the Taliban can wait out in their homes for the army to leave, the national guard and local police forces reside is the hills too.

The right to bear arms NRA interpretation was over when they invented tanks, artillery and war planes. No you cannot have a grenade much less the ordinance to violently overthrow the US government. It certainly plays to the action hero complex of juvenile men though. Rambo did it!

[Blake]

Cruz is crazy but what a terrible example used by Blake to try and show he's crazy. Cruz actually got the bolded part right. Smh Blake.

So if Cruz becomes president, and I believe he's tyrannical, do you really believe I have a constitutional right to shoot him?

[spursncowboys]

Really? Lambasting "Washington" isn't Ted's favorite past time?
It seems like you have turned people with complex views as a caricature. Wanting to change the federal government doesn't mean despise.

[CosmicCowboy]

What military engagement have they won? While the Taliban can wait out in their homes for the army to leave, the national guard and local police forces reside is the hills too.

The right to bear arms NRA interpretation was over when they invented tanks, artillery and war planes. No you cannot have a grenade much less the ordinance to violently overthrow the US government. It certainly plays to the action hero complex of juvenile men though. Rambo did it!

You seem to be making the automatic assumption that the volunteer army and national guard would wage war against the American public. That's a pretty bold assumption.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So if Cruz becomes president, and I believe he's tyrannical, do you really believe I have a constitutional right to shoot him?
Where did Cruz or I say anything about the constitutionality of assassinating a President?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You seem to be making the automatic assumption that the volunteer army and national guard would wage war against the American public. That's a pretty bold assumption.

I actually know and speak to a bevy of military officers daily. If the army throws in then the citizenry having small arms is a moot point. I will say that they are much more likely to raise hell on an armed group than an unarmed one. Gahndi and King as opposed to Ruby Ridge.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah right. " a bevy daily" :lol

[ElNono]

It seems like you have turned people with complex views as a caricature. Wanting to change the federal government doesn't mean despise.

If he wants to change it, it's because he doesn't like what he sees. And he's been pretty vocal about it. His dislike for the current version of the federal government is not complex at all.

Actually changing Washington is certainly a complex issue. Much more complex than what you're allowed to do under the 2nd amendment.

Peddling the "fighting tyranny" line, then turning around and backing up big brother is the caricature, and that's certainly all his own doing.

I mean, sure, Hillary is worse! But he's not running against Hillary yet.

[ElNono]

You seem to be making the automatic assumption that the volunteer army and national guard would wage war against the American public. That's a pretty bold assumption.

It actually is the military (or a heavy militarized faction, see: FARC) that have historically conducted successful coup d'état on democratically elected governments.

But even in those cases the 2nd amendment is important, just for self-defense alone.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah right. " a bevy daily" :lol

You surrendered my point about it being a moot point and the greater success of nonviolent protest in western culture.

You lose, brokiller.

[CosmicCowboy]

I didn't surrender anything just noted you are full of a bevy of shit.

[Blake]

Where did Cruz or I say anything about the constitutionality of assassinating a President?

Cruz says that if he becomes tyrannical, I have the constitutional right to protect my liberties and shoot him.

[Slutter McGee]

So if Cruz becomes president, and I believe he's tyrannical, do you really believe I have a constitutional right to shoot him?

I think this is what we call liberal logic. As in there is no rational thought involved. A check on power is far different than an invitation for open rebellion and assassination based on perceived slight.

But lets not pretend that governments never implement tyrannical policies. Nazi Germany was not that long ago. Would you disagree with the right of Jews to shoot SS German mother fuckers in the head?

Its called a check. The government can get away with a lot. But there are some extreme things it cant because of an armed populace. Are those situations likely to happen? hell no. But is it possible in the long run? sure.

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

Cruz says that if he becomes tyrannical, I have the constitutional right to protect my liberties and shoot him.

You have a natural right if you are defending your life, liberty, or property from unjust actions. Not a constitutional right. You do have the constitutional right to own a gun....which helps protect your from Cruz doing anything tyrannical in the first place.

Slutter McGee

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't surrender anything just noted you are full of a bevy of shit.

Just like you are full of shit about not being responsible for your brothers death? I have two active military officers and one enlisted in the family currently as well as three others that are retired. We don't backstab and reprise each other and instead talk.

Good luck with your secession effort in lobbying officers and NCOs of the armed services, brokiller.

[CosmicCowboy]

Assuming that is true how did YOU get so fucked up? Personally think you are just full of a bevy of shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Assuming that is true how did YOU get so fucked up? Personally think you are just full of a bevy of shit.

So you don't want to talk about the army anymore either.

Intellectual cowardice suits you, brokiller.

So your response to my saying that modern warfare makes the 18th century Locke ideal to be moot is that I am fucked up. Nice.

I actually really like the concept of social contract. I just think that the bullshit state of nature nonsense can be discounted.

[Blake]

.

[Blake]

You have a natural right if you are defending your life, liberty, or property from unjust actions. Not a constitutional right. You do have the constitutional right to own a gun....which helps protect your from Cruz doing anything tyrannical in the first place.

Slutter McGee

I also have a constitutional right to shoot Cruz if he gets tyrannical.

According to Cruz.

[Slutter McGee]

I also have a constitutional right to shoot Cruz if he gets tyrannical.

According to Cruz.

Sure you do....Lol. This is why we think you liberals are stupid..

Slutter McGee

[Blake]

Sure you do....Lol. This is why we think you liberals are stupid..

Slutter McGee

No Cruz thinks we do. That's why I think he's crazy.

You guys trying to translate for him are stupid.

[Th'Pusher]

Cruz is a fucking clown with ZERO chance of getting the republican nomination. He's a joke and an embarrassment.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well apparently Cruz knows how to secure a military base better than generals.

:lol he's clown car stupid.


Cruz takes Second Amendment fight to military bases

By James Hohmann

4/19/15 9:03 PM EDT

LITCHFIELD, N.H.—Appealing to New Hampshire’s powerful gun culture, Sen. Ted Cruz said Sunday that he’s “pressing” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain to hold hearings on whether soldiers should be allowed to carry their own concealed firearms onto military bases.

“I am very concerned about that policy,” the Texas senator told 120 gun owners at a hunting club here, before taking a trip to a firing range for some target practice. “I think it’s very important to have a public discussion about why we’re denying our soldiers the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Defense Department leaders oppose relaxing the ban, which was enacted under George H.W. Bush.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/ted-cruz-2016-second-amendment-gun-rights-117133.html?hp=l1_3

[spursncowboys]

Well apparently Cruz knows how to secure a military base better than generals.

:lol he's clown car stupid.



http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/ted-cruz-2016-second-amendment-gun-rights-117133.html?hp=l1_3

Why is that stupid?

[boutons_deux]

Why is that stupid?

... because Krazy Kruz said it. No need to analyze further.

[spursncowboys]

... because Krazy Kruz said it. No need to analyze further.
That's funny that you didn't mean that to be facetious.

[CosmicCowboy]

Certainly could have made a difference at Fort Hood.

[Blizzardwizard]

It genuinely scares me that someone as crazy as this fool could potentially become the most powerful man in the free world.

[boutons_deux]

Certainly could have made a difference at Fort Hood.

yep, one occurrence justifies arming 100% of every person on all bases.

[Blake]

Certainly could have made a difference at Fort Hood.

I haven't looked, but wonder what GHW Bush's reasoning was when he signed off on the ban of concealed weapons on bases.

Was there an incident that spurred it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why is that stupid?

I said it in the sentence itself. If you still have trouble identify the prepositional phrase let me know. Reading is Fundamental.

[boutons_deux]

Cruz Campaign Accuses Paul and Rubio of Wimping Out on Gun Rights After Newtown

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has launched one of the first R-on-R attacks, and he has done so regarding an issue of primal importance to the Republican voting base: guns.

A few days ago, Cruz’s presidential campaign zapped out an email hitting up conservatives for donations. The solicitation showed Cruz, the tea party favorite, wearing a bright orange hunting vest, with a shotgun on his shoulder, and its message was stark: Send me money so I can support your Second Amendment rights, which "serve as the ultimate check against government tyranny." Cruz warned that he was "under attack from the left-wing media and even Republicans who want to label me as an extremist—all for supporting a fundamental right." And then he took a shot at the other GOP 2016 contestants: "I'm the only candidate running for President who not only believes in the Constitutional right to keep an dear arms—but has the record of fighting for it, tooth and nail."

The only Republican 2016er who's a proven crusader for gun rights? That was quite the claim—and a dig at everyone else in the crowded field, particularly the other GOPers who are competing for tea party and conservative voters. After all, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has declared himself a champion of gun rights. He has longsupported (http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx) the National Association for Gun Rights—a group that hypes itself as theconservative alternative (http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx) to the NRA. Rand Paul often signs email solicitations for this outfit, such as one that asserted that President Barack Obama and the UN were plotting to "CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL 'unauthorized' civilian firearms.'"

(Paul was not invited to the NRA’s recent convention—because, NGAR president Dudley Brown claimed (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/09/why-rand-paul-is-unwelcome-at-nra-gun-rights-convention/), "Paul is more pro-gun that the NRA.") Paul has repeatedly moved to eviscerate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/07/09/rand-paul-again-targets-d-c-gun-laws-with-senate-amendment/) the gun laws of Washington, DC. And prior to becoming a senator, he campaigned (http://www.barefootandprogressive.com/2010/04/a-closer-look-at-rand-pauls-militia-friends.html) at a gun rights rally with armed militia members who noted that guns could be used to prevent "progressive socialists" from thwarting Second Amendment and other rights. That is, Paul has established a rather die-hard stance on guns.

Yet that did not stop Cruz from depicting himself as the only true and tested advocate for gun rights in the Republican's 2016 gang.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/cruz-paul-rubio-gun-rights

So, Krazy Kruz is a slandering liar, knowing you ignorant, gun fellatin tea baggers will fall for his lies every time.