Smapti, there can never be judicial acknowledgement of the right to rebel. Nor is one necessary. The founders didn’t get a warrant from a court to rebel.
The whole point of rebellion is for when law breaks down. If the President does something and ignores Congress and the Supreme Court, then the people can no longer rely on rule of law to protect their rights.
Jefferson: " I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
"
http://foundersquotes.com/quotes/i-hold-it-that-a-little-rebellion-now-and-then-is-a-good-thing/
Also from Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
One of these statements must be false. I leave it to the reader to decide which one.
The founder wrote extensively about rebellion. I think the non-crazy side is the one that agrees with them.
Your points about the possibility of rebellion, as it relates to Obama today, are utterly ridiculous.
It’s ridiculous that I said it wouldn’t happen?
You are absolutely correct in noting Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts on rebellion.
Where you veer into the ditch of whack-a-doodle is to think that our current constitutionally elected president, exercising his constitutional authority, is within light years of requiring a discussion on rebellion.
As I keep saying, I don’t think that’s the case at all. I was only defending the concept of rebellion, not justifying it given today’s conditions. We are nowhere near that point, and in fact we’ve been closer in the past. I think Andrew Jackson and FDR could have provoked a rebellion, except they wisely chose to pick on minorities who couldn’t effectively fight back. Obama is nowhere near their level of lawlessness.
You’ve already been shown to be wrong about the armed rebellion planning thing; do you think it will become true if you say it enough times?
You believe there is an armed rebellion in the planning stages? And you think I’m crazy?
It’s ridiculous when you said “we’d win”.
I know you’re crazy. And stupid. But hey, have it your way: cite that there is no armed rebellion being planned in the United States?
As I expected!
:dubious:
Sounds to me like Jefferson had no problem with putting down a rebellion . . . even if it meant killing patriots.
CMC fnord!
No, it isn’t. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to facilitate armed rebellion. The “militia” – which Congress can call into federal service and the President command – was meant to be an arm of the government, never a countervailing force against it. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was indeed to prevent federal tyranny – i.e., to prevent reliance on a large standing federal army by making sure the state/citizens’ militias would always be armed to fight. A large army was feared as a potential instrument of tyranny, understandable after the Americans’ experiences with the Redcoats – the same accounted for the 3rd Amendment against compulsory quartering of troops in homes. As it turned out, their fears were unfounded; we have had a large standing army for a long time, and it has never questioned its subordination to civilian authority, and (unless you count Reconstruction, and, no, don’t; and Indian wars are another discussion) civilian authority has never used it to oppress the people, and in most wars the militia/NG plays an afterthought role, if any – not to downplay its value, but it never provides the bulk of forces as the authors of the 2nd intended. The 2nd Amendment is pretty much as useless as the 3rd.
Smapti vs. adaher. Shit, who do you root for? The retard or the fascist? 
Well, Smapti appears to be gleefully bragging about the police shutting down a peaceful protest in Ferguson, so fuck him. And adaher seems to be defending “second amendment solutions”, albeit in a slightly less retarded way than is generally presented. Gonna have to go with the retard on this one.
More women-courting from the lovelies at Fucking Nuts:
*Fox host Brian Kilmeade on Monday blasted the victims of domestic violence, criticizing Palmer (now Janay Rice) and other women who don’t break up with their partner after a domestic violence incident, saying they send a “terrible message.”
Kilmeade then proceeded to provide mocking advice to Palmer, quipping, “I think the message is, take the stairs.” Co-host Steve Doocey gamely joined in, “The message is, when you’re in an elevator, there’s a camera.” *
Yeah, that’s the message: Blame the victim. As usual.
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/09/08/3564605/fox-mocks-ray-rice-victim/
I repeat.
That does suggest the possibility – what about “Second Amendment solutions” against the Ferguson PD? Anyone care to defend?
BrainGlutton: Well, as bad as it is, it makes a little more sense than taking it out on neighborhood shopkeepers.
“The cops killed my friend… I’m gonna burn down a convenience store…”
vs.
“The cops killed my friend…I’m gonna cap a cop!”
Both are horrifying, but the latter, at least, is more accurately focused.
But the former is safer, therefore preferred, as it should be.