Where does it say that?It is a scary situation.
And I do not like it when I see the Police and these normally law abiding citizens clashing.
I know the constitution gives US citizens the right to bear arms and form militia's to overcome "Tyranny".
Frankly, I don't even see this as the right idea and it sure as heck is the wrong execution, even if it was said right idea!Let me tell 'em it was growing pains - the wrong execution of the right idea.
Yep, no courts, no jury, just right to jail or simply execute them on site. You sure wouldn't advocate that for the rioters in all the major cities that have destroyed millions of dollars in private and government property, why is that? I guess what they're doing is more "legal" in your eyes? Tell me how their situation is "more legal" than the guys in Oregon. Perhaps it doesn't square with your extreme liberal stance, so those criminals don't deserve to be executed on the spot.There's laws. there's the courts, the bundy's didn't like the fact some ranchers took things into their own hands starting back fires without the proper authorization and were found guilty of doing so according to the reports.
Uphold the Constitution my butt, nothing but a bunch of gun toting yahoo's. you'd fit right in.
And throw clyde in jail, seize the property he leases to pay what he owes.
Actually; we are both correct, this is why we have jury's and lawyers to interpret the law.Where does it say that?
Militias are mentioned 5 times in the Constitution:
Art I sec 8:
Congress can call forth the milita to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
Congreess can provide for organizing, arming, disciplining the militia and for governing them as they may be empoyed in the service of the US.
Art II sec 2:
The president is commander in chief of the Army, Navy and the militias of the states, when called in the actual service of the United States.
A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Capital crimes have to go before a grand jury except in case involving the military or milita, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.
NONE, not one, of those sections authorize people to "form militia's to overcome "Tyranny"."
On the contrary they use the terms like execute the laws, well regulated, disciplined, in the actual service of the US. NONE of those things apply here. If they are a militia in service to the US then Obama is their commander in chief, don't argue about it, that's what the Constituion says. Don't read some right wing propaganda, read the Constitution, its there in black and white.
There is nothing in that document that authorizes people to take up arms to redress their grievances. Exactly the opposite. There are multiple ways that people can redress their grievances provided in the Constitution. Armed mobs is not one of them.
I never said anything about an individual not having the right to bear arms. My objection is to the insinuation that the Constitution allows citizens to take up arms against the government.Actually; we are both correct, this is why we have jury's and lawyers to interpret the law.
I wish it was black and white; but it is not, and here is why:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States.
You DO realize that temporary suspension of any and all aliens travel to the US when there is a perceived threat is a power granted to the President and is written in US Code, right?I never said anything about an individual not having the right to bear arms. My objection is to the insinuation that the Constitution allows citizens to take up arms against the government.
So far the only evidence in support of that concept is in the Federalist papers. The Federalist papers are NOT part of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution provides an option for people to take up arms against the government or its laws. Taking up arms against the government is insurrection and the Constitution explicitly allows the government to suppress it.
When the government passes a law, if the minority that objects to it takes up arms to force their will on the majority, that is tyranny. The Constitution provides for remedies besides forcing your opinions on people at the point of a sword.
I find it amusing that if you mention gun ownership there is a long discourse on the Second Amendment, but when Trump proposes running the First amendment religious freedoms through the shredder by his restrictions on Muslims you guys can't wait to get in line behind him.
If the IRA becomes violent again and blows up an airliner from London to New York, will you be cheering behind Trump if he bans Catholics from entering the US? If he can ban Muslims he can ban Catholics.
In case you missed it....this isn't Trump's proposal. It's US Statutory Code.but when Trump proposes running the First amendment religious freedoms through the shredder by his restrictions on Muslims you guys can't wait to get in line behind him..