[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles

Title: Guns in U.S. are ‘ultimate check against government tyranny’: Cruz
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo ... ainst-government-tyranny-cruz/
Published: Apr 17, 2015
Author: Joel Connelly
Post Date: 2015-04-17 05:56:24 by out damned spot
Keywords: Guns, tyranny, Cruz
Views: 3104
Comments: 26

The right to gun ownership in America is not just about hunting, or protecting property and person, but “the ultimate check against government tyranny,” argues a fund appeal from Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R- Texas.

The Cruz fundraising letter echoes arguments made by militia groups, and a far-right demonstration last winter that followed voter passage of an initiative requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers.

“The Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t just for protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice,” said Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general.

“It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives and to serve as the ultimate check against government tyranny — for the protection of liberty.”

The argument was immediately challenged — and lampooned — by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., another possible GOP candidate.

“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C.

Graham was referring to South Carolina as the first state to secede from the Union after Abraham Lincoln was elected president, and site of the first shots fired in the Civil War.

“I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than, you know, guns in the street,” Graham added.

Verbal shots fired by the two Republican White House hopefuls illustrate the direction taken by their party in recent years.

Graham was considered a conservative insurrectionist when he was elected to Congress as part of the GOP sweep in 1994. He is now a Senate insider. Cruz, elected in 2012, is far to his right and is already responsible for one partial shutdown of the federal government.

Graham argued that Republicans have a political target on which to take aim.

“I’m not looking for an insurrection,” he said. “I’m looking to defeat Hillary. We’re not going to out-gun her … I think in a democracy the best check on government is voter participation. I think the First Amendment probably protects us more.”

But Cruz is hoping to corral a key constituency among Republican voters and caucus-goers who will choose their party’s 2016 presidential nominee.

“I am the only candidate running for president who not only believes in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms — but has the record of fighting for it, tooth and nail.”

He has competition. Ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio spoke at the just-completed National Rifle Association convention. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: out damned spot (#0)

The argument was immediately challenged — and lampooned — by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., another possible GOP candidate.

“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C.

Lady Lindsey is kinda bitchy lately.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-17   6:03:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: out damned spot (#0)

It is time to do a serious study of Romans 13!

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-17   7:38:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: TooConservative (#1)

“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C.

Lady Lindsey is kinda bitchy lately.

He might as well stop the charade and run as a Democrat.

Maybe even the VP spot with Hillary.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts

Deckard  posted on  2015-04-17   8:57:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: out damned spot (#0)

“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C.

Good grief... It takes a posturing stooge like Cruz to make Lindsey Graham look reasonable and rational...

Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-17   9:16:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Willie Green (#4)

So you are against the second amendment? What part of Cruz's statement do you find untrue?

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-04-17   10:49:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Dead Culture Watch (#5)

In today's world, I believe that the 2nd Amendment only serves a legitimate purpose for individual self-defense against criminals.

Cruz's whacknut rhetoric about "government tyranny" may have made sense in the late 18th Century, but it merely encourages the kooks and endangers the general public in the 21st Century.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-17   11:30:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Willie Green, Dead Culture Watch (#6)

In today's world, I believe that the 2nd Amendment only serves a legitimate purpose for individual self-defense against criminals.

And what's NOT "criminal" about a corrupt, tyrannical gubmint??

Cruz's whacknut rhetoric about "government tyranny" may have made sense in the late 18th Century, but it merely encourages the kooks and endangers the general public in the 21st Century.

"Kooks." So that's how you refer to those who defy tyranny and would defend the Republic from unconstitutional criminal usurpers of We The Peoples' authority?? Stunning.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-17   11:36:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Willie Green (#4)

Good grief... It takes a posturing stooge like Cruz to make Lindsey Graham look reasonable and rational...

Funny that you would instead believe Lady Lindsey's own "posturing." Wait...it's you, isn't it?

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-17   11:38:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Deckard (#3)

He [Lady Lindsey] might as well stop the charade and run as a Democrat.

It's also about time Graham to showed up at the Senate in a yellow sundress and tiny umbrella.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-17   11:39:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Willie Green, confused again. (#6)

“It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives and to serve as the ultimate check against government tyranny — for the protection of liberty.”

“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C.

Willy Green --- In today's world, I believe that the 2nd Amendment only serves a legitimate purpose for individual self-defense against criminals.

Poor confused Willy, -- believes like Graham, that the south was defending its citizens rights.

Wrong. The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; -- and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-17   11:54:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tpaine (#10)

Poor confused Willy, -- believes like Graham, that the south was defending its citizens rights.

Your incessant strawman arguments are dull and monotonous.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-17   12:21:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tpaine (#10)

The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; -- and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense.

No, the South wasn't defending slavery; It was defending it's right to self-governance and sovereignty, right or wrong. "Slavery" was a minor issue,but of course the Yankee Press controlled the narrative and propaganda -- just like today.

Moreover, the terms of the individual States' contract with the fedgoob to join the Union were violated.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-17   12:34:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Willie Green (#11)

Where's the 'straw man argument' Willy? -- Grahams comment obviously means he thinks the south had a 'right' to enslave blacks. --- Your position on guns, agrees with his.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-17   14:59:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Liberator (#12)

The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; - - and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense.

No, the South wasn't defending slavery;

You cannot deny that the northern states were about to pass an anti-slavery amendment. This was a major issue to the southern economy.

It was defending it's right to self-governance and sovereignty, right or wrong. "Slavery" was a minor issue,but of course the Yankee Press controlled the narrative and propaganda -- just like today. -- Moreover, the terms of the individual States' contract with the fedgoob to join the Union were violated.

Yep, they had a bunch of other issues, -- just like today,-- but slavery was the principal constitutional issue.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-17   15:10:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: tpaine (#13)

Grahams comment obviously means he thinks the south had a 'right' to enslave blacks. --- Your position on guns, agrees with his.

Yeah... you're full of shit, too.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-17   15:54:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: tpaine, VxX (#14)

The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; - - and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense...slavery was the principal constitutional issue.

The South was NOT fighting FOR slavery. Again, Southern State citizens were fighting for their own sovereignty and right to govern themselves.

If "slavery" was such a huge "constitutional" issue, then why hadn't the original Founders thought so while maintaining, "all men are created equal"?

Furthermore, the North was NOT fighting to end slavery. Let's be real here. This was a power play.

You cannot deny that the northern states were about to pass an anti-slavery amendment. This was a major issue to the southern economy.

Irrelevant. The North, representing the interest of its own business elites -- invaded the South. HELLO. And ever since, States' Rights have been subservient to an over-officious federal Leviathan. Yeah, that worked out well, eh?

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-17   16:04:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Willie Green (#6)

Cruz's whacknut rhetoric about "government tyranny" may have made sense in the late 18th Century, but it merely encourages the kooks and endangers the general public in the 21st Century.

Well, if the government as you see it is not criminal, then I can't help you. You've seen all the stories for many years about just how corrupt these bastards are, so, sigh......

However, since you seem to agree that the second amendment has a place, if the 'kooks' are right, they will have the means to self defense and setting up a good perimeter as they erect the guillotines.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-04-17   23:17:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Liberator (#16)

Don't know if you've read this yet, thought you might find this guy worth looking at, very funny and well written stuff.

www.fredoneverything.net/South.shtml

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-04-17   23:22:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Dead Culture Watch (#17)

Well, if the government as you see it is not criminal, then I can't help you. You've seen all the stories for many years about just how corrupt these bastards are, so, sigh......

And you, Cruz, Wayne LaPierre & Timothy McVeigh think that an armed insurrection is the appropriate mechanism for "regime change?"

No thanks... As far as I'm concerned, the government needs to lock-up the anti-government kooks to protect us law abiding citizens, If that means registering and regulating who can own handguns or rifles or what types of ammo & magazines they can use, so be it. I'm not interested in supporting any domestic anti-government terrorists posturing as self-anointed "patriotic" militia... They're actually nothing but a bunch of dangerous, paranoid dingbats.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-04-18   7:38:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Liberator (#16)

The south was defending slavery, which NO man has a right to inflict on another; - - and is in itself a criminal act, worthy of self-defense...slavery was the principal constitutional issue. (As a cause of the civil war)

The South was NOT fighting FOR slavery. Again, Southern State citizens were fighting for their own sovereignty and right to govern themselves.

So they claimed, but the confederate constitution was virtually identical, with the exception of allowing slavery, -- to the US CONSTITUTION they rebelled against.

If "slavery" was such a huge "constitutional" issue, then why hadn't the original Founders thought so while maintaining, "all men are created equal"?

The Constitution allowed for slavery to be abolished after 1808. (See Article I, section 9)

Furthermore, the North was NOT fighting to end slavery. Let's be real here. This was a power play.

You're denying historical reality. There was a massive national movement to abolish slavery.

You cannot deny that the northern states were about to pass an anti-slavery amendment. This was a major issue to the southern economy.

Irrelevant. The North, representing the interest of its own business elites -- invaded the South.

No, the abolition of slavery was imminent, not irrelevant. And it would have collapsed southern business elites.

HELLO. And ever since, States' Rights have been subservient to an over- officious federal Leviathan. Yeah, that worked out well, eh?

The Fed leviathan started with the success of progressive socialist movement around 1900. It had nothing to do with civil war anti-slavery.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-19   17:07:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Willie Green (#19)

Dead Culture Watch (#17) ---- Well, if the government as you see it is not criminal, then I can't help you. You've seen all the stories for many years about just how corrupt these bastards are, so, sigh......

Willy ---- And you, Cruz, Wayne LaPierre & Timothy McVeigh think that an armed insurrection is the appropriate mechanism for "regime change?"

Get real Willy... Armed insurrection would be a last resort, as the 2nd guarantees.

No thanks... As far as I'm concerned, the government needs to lock-up the anti- government kooks to protect us law abiding citizens, If that means registering and regulating who can own handguns or rifles or what types of ammo & magazines they can use, so be it.

Yep, so be it, Willy. Your treasonous, anti-constitutional political stance is guaranteed by the very constitution you disdain.

I'm not interested in supporting any domestic anti-government terrorists posturing as self-anointed "patriotic" militia... They're actually nothing but a bunch of dangerous, paranoid dingbats.

Look in a mirror Willy, -- you'll see a dangerous, paranoid, dingbat..

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-19   17:21:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: tpaine (#21)

Armed insurrection would be a last resort, as the 2nd guarantees.

President Bush call[ed] the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper."

The report was posted on Dec. 5, 2005. According to author, Doug Thompson, unnamed Republican leaders complained to Bush during a White House meeting about "onerous" portions of the USA Patriot Act, prompting the following:

Capitol Hill Blue: “I don’t give a goddamn,” [G.W.] Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-19   17:35:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: tpaine (#20) (Edited)

The Fed leviathan started with the success of progressive socialist movement around 1900. It had nothing to do with civil war anti-slavery.

The Progressive-Statist movement started in earnest right after the North declared victory. The carpetbaggers and international Banksters swooped in and exploited the situation. Between Dewey, Wilson, and the Jeckyl Island confab, I think we can pin down the approx date that the Progressive/Statist ownage of gubmint began being enforced in the open.

There was a massive national movement to abolish slavery.

The movement was modest, but gaining support.

The Constitution allowed for slavery to be abolished after 1808. (See Article I, section 9)

1808 is NOT 1787, is it? And anyway, slavery was apparently either grandfathered or enforced selectively on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-19   20:10:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Willie Green, Dead Culture Watch (#19)

And you, Cruz, Wayne LaPierre & Timothy McVeigh think that an armed insurrection is the appropriate mechanism for "regime change?"

Good grief, you're beyond ridiculous. Mentioning McVeigh in the same breath as Ted Cruz is insane.

ZERO has already engaged in destroying this republic in broad daylight, the rule of law, our economy and security and USCON with his treasonous regime. And you're NOT worried about THOSE "repercussions"??

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-19   20:18:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Dead Culture Watch (#18) (Edited)

Don't know if you've read this yet, thought you might find this guy worth looking at, very funny and well written stuff.

Never had heard or read of the guy. Read quite a bit of his essays and rants, thanks.

He's spot on on so much. We should post some of his stuff here. BUT...I'm a little worried about his canary-like Frisco leather get-up ;-) which reminded me that I wished he'd have weighed more on the rampant homofascism.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-19   20:21:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Liberator (#23)

The Fed leviathan started with the success of progressive socialist movement around 1900. It had nothing to do with civil war anti-slavery.

The Progressive-Statist movement started in earnest right after the North declared victory. The carpetbaggers and international Banksters swooped in and exploited the situation.

Shortly after the war, the southern states were left to their own devices, politically speaking. You're simply denying history.

There was a massive national movement to abolish slavery. (Before the civil war)

The movement was modest, but gaining support.

Lincoln was elected president by this movement. -- Slavery was on its way out. And ---

The Constitution, ratified in 1787, allowed for slavery to be abolished after 1808. (See Article I, section 9)

1808 is NOT 1787, is it? And anyway, slavery was apparently either grandfathered or enforced selectively on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

And slavery was about to be abolished on both sides of the line, so the south rebelled.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-19   20:32:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com