“A trained and prepared militia on hand for a State to repel an aggressive Federal Government”? Now why would a government charter put a proviso in place ENCOURAGING armed rebellion? Especially at a time armed rebellions were occurring? This is a modern misreading.
-
Ten tweet jest niedostępny.
-
I suspect a similar argument was made ‘round 1860, that government overreach was overriding personal freedom, and the conclusion made that sedition was not only just or necessary, but supported by our founding documents.
Shorter—there is nothing in the Second Amendment permitting your right to insurrection. And the legal stipulations that directly DO concern it take a pretty dim view.
-
-
Ten tweet jest niedostępny.
-
On its face, yes, you are correct. But the section of the quoted tweet that even prompted my response was related to that call. And the question really is—why are those two things so often conflated? Why do people take up arms as a threat or a warning AGAINST their government?
Koniec rozmowy
-
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.