Quote of the Day

"The problem with this new quote is that it borders on anti-democratic. I don’t care how many times you praise the Founding Fathers or talk about your love of the Constitution, if you think that the way to resolve policy differences or personal arguments with the government is not just by trying to get different people elected or waging a campaign to change the laws or filing suits in court, but through the use of violence against the government, you have announced that you have no commitment to democracy. In the American system, we don’t say that if the government enacts policies we don’t like, we’ll start killing people. It’s not clear that Ernst meant this, but it’s fair to ask her to explain what she did mean."

Source

Bad news: You're not really an oath keeper, you're an oath breaker.

We've gone over Article III, Section iii of the US Constitution.  It's also been shown that "Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change."

We need to add in that the Fourteenth Amendment says:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

While you might want to find some authority for your claim to be able to "fight" the United States,  you cannot use the US Constitution, or Constitutional framework, as an authority.

In fact, it makes it pretty clear that you are not a patriot.  Instead, but by the Constitutional definition above, you are a traitor and engaging in treason.

Quote of the Day

Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

So you really want to take on the US Military...

Think about these videos before you do something really dumb (not that you're too brite anyway)...



The fun begins around 2:40 in the next vid:



So you have sniper fantasies?



How can we forget steel rain?



Just remember the Spartans were wiped out by superior forces.

Have a nice day!

Rehash on insurrection

H.A. Goodman had an article in the Huffington Post called What Gun Advocates Should Remember: You'll Never Overthrow The Government and It Isn't Scared of You. It's pretty much the same thing that gets said over and over, but some people think they are going to be"heroes" when the are actually going to be dead idiots.

I am probably wasting my time trying to talk sense to people who think they know more than other people.

Anyway:

First, not everyone has the same definition of the word "tyranny." Some conservatives view Obamacare as tyrannical while many liberals view it as not going far enough in terms of nationalized health care. Furthermore, a law or tax viewed as despotic by some citizens might also be regarded as a necessity by the government. In the late 1700s, some Americans viewed the Founders in the same manner that many of us view Bush or Obama. Whether it was anger of taxes in the Whiskey Rebellion, or unfair treatment of veterans in Shay's Rebellion, armed Americans have never been able to overthrow their government, even in the early years of the country.

Simple fact: the Founders might have given citizens the right to bear arms, they viewed any rebellion to their authority as a mortal threat to the republic. Also, as Richard Brookhiser, the historian and senior editor at the National Review, states, it's the responsibility of citizens to vote or debate, not engage in violence in order to change legislation.

The real lesson here is that any illusion that owning one gun, or one hundred guns, would frighten or alter the way government behaves is not only unrealistic, but something George Washington would find unacceptable. The view propagated by the NRA that gun ownership keeps the federal government "in check" is not only historically inaccurate, but also contrary to the actions of our Founding Fathers.

Got that?

Try to make this simple for stupid people to try to understand.

One thing that makes the US great is Article III, Section iii of the US Constitution which says:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The Constitution also says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Which means anything like founding father quotes and the Declaration of Independence (and other historical documents) ARE NOT legally binding.

So, you assholes need to live by the document you claim to believe in  or get a brain.

The Second Amendment does not explicitly repeal Article III, Section iii no matter how much your diseased minds might want it to, which means that you have to live by consitutional process, or work to change it through the system as provided in the constitution.

And if you took an oath to defend the nation or enforce the laws: guess what?

You have to do that job whether you agree with the law or nor.

If you are given a lawful order you must obey it, and you are not the final arbiter of what a lawful order is since I doubt you have the intelligence to know what the law is if you belong to an organisation as fucked up as the oath breakers.

So, before you start doing silly shit--you might want to get a handle on what exactly the Constitution says and how it works.

Although, that is probably too late for you and you are already doing some seriously fucked up shit.

What if they gave a revolution and nobody came?

Yes, I'm talking about that 10-30 Million turn out for Operation American Spring, which probably had more people watching it than attending it. And only a few thousand watching it.

And probably most of the people watching it were "libtards" who wanted to laugh at the feebleminded doing what the feebleminded do.

Sorry, but political correctness will never win out over human nature and people love to make fun of feebs--especially if the feebs are making a show of themselves.

I think most of the comments were coming from the "libtard" contingent as well.

I didn't make any comments at the live feeds, but I do have to say that the 97% don't have too much to fear from the III% if this is any indication of their efficacy or intelligence.

In fact, we don't need for the guvment to take you out as you are doing a wonderful job of it yourselves.

Even the Washington Times had this admission from the people who generated this fuck up:

“We were getting over two inches of rain in hour in parts of Virginia this morning,” Mr. Milton said. “Now it’s a nice sunny day. But this is a very poor turnout. It ain’t no millions. And it ain’t looking like there’s going to be millions. Hundreds is more like it.”

Something about not being able to run a piss up in a brewery comes to mind as I watched the sideways footage at the Washington Monument.  On the site where I was making comments with other "libtards" as we watched some real "tards" who were trying to mainstream, another commenter pointed out:

Definition of go sideways
go sideways, verb, to become worse.

In fact, if anything, we are watching your movement self-destruct.

Which, if we are grateful for anything you do--it will be that your movement collapses on its own from your being fuckwits.

Thank you for being yourselves.

Anyway, I'm sure that "the Mainstream Media" will mention you: Rachel Maddow is always up for a laugh at your expense.

See also:

• Twitter looks for Operation American Spring: ‘Where is everybody? I’m confused’
• Operation American Spring, the Right's Crazy Copy of Occupy, Explained
• Operation American Spring falls flat: ‘This is very disappointing,’ Texan says 
• Results for #AmericanSpringexcuses

Tyrannical Government--the reality

This is Homs in Syria:

The headline which accompanied this picture reads:
Syrian army crushes key rebel stronghold in Homs

There is this description of the Syrian Army's attack:

“In every single second you can hear the sound of mortars and rockets and air strikes,” said an activist calling himself Abu Rami speaking from Khalidiya. “The regime is so close you hear the sound of them launching the missile, and then you hear them land.”

The Syrian rebels were armed, but seriously outgunned by a force which had an objective of crushing the rebellion:

Last week one rebel fighter said the outlook was so bleak that he and his colleagues went to battle in suicide belts, to detonate should they be captured.

“If we are captured we use it when we are crowded among the soldiers,” said Adnan, 27.

His voice tired and his tone hopeless, Mohammed, the activist who had just managed to flee, said: “Most of my friends have died fighting in Khalidiya these last years. Now I have no news about the ones that are left.”

A truly tyrannical regime has no qualms about wiping out any rebellion, no matter how much force it takes or what kind of force is needed.

Does Halabja mean anything to you?

If the US were truly a tyranny, you would have quietly disappeared in the night never to be heard from again.

Or,  as Matthew White says about the old gun control=genocide argument:

Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed-- guns or no guns.

Fake gun quotes.

You know how I keep saying that if you actually have a brain, can do research, and go and cite check those pro-gun quotes out there, that they usually are inaccurate and misleading.

Gawker has a few of these, but I particularly like this one:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self defense."

FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO: John Adams.

TRUTH: A version of this was even used by the NRA for several years. Because what Adams—federalist, signer of the Sedition Acts, and perennial pessimist about human nature—really liked was armed mobs. In fact, this is a bastardization of a longer quote in defense of the Constitution, which says something very different—namely, that armed untrained citizens in mass posed a threat to liberty and constitutional government:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

I've already posted a link that showed most people were appalled by the anarchy which followed the War for American Independence (with a few exceptions, such as Jefferson).  Things like Samuel Adams  statement that "the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

Abigail Adams wrote about her anxieties for Massachusetts and her disappointment in the behavior of some of its inhabitants n a letter to Thomas Jefferson from 29 January 1787:

With regard to the tumults in my Native State which you inquire about, I wish I could say that report had exaggerated them, it is too true Sir that they have been carried to so allarming a Height as to stop the courts of justice in several Counties. Ignorant, restless desperadoes, without conscience or principals, have led a deluded multitude to follow their standard, under pretence of grievances which have no existence but in their own imaginations. (3)

According to Abigail Adams, the grievances of those closing the courts in Massachusetts

Abigail snappishly dismissed the demands and grievances of these "mobish insurgents" who were "sapping the foundation, and destroying the whole fabrick" of the state:

Some of them were crying out for a paper currency, some for an equal distribution of property, some were for annihilating all debts, others complained that the Court of common pleas was unnecessary that the sitting of the general court in Boston was a grievance. By this list you will see the materials which compose this rebellion and the necessity there is of the wisest and more vigorus measures to quell & suppress it…(4)

She firmly believed that "these people make[?] only a small part of the State." Time and attention to the true causes of the problems by "the more Sensible and judicious" residents would resolve the situation.

Benjamin Franklin had no sympathy for "the mad attempts to overthrow" the Massachusetts Constitution or "the wickedness and ignorance of a few, who, while they enjoy it, are insensible of its excellence." Franklin, like Samuel Adams, had little patience for those who he believed sought to undermine or overthrow a government constituted by and for the people.

I've also mentioned that James Madison said:

 "There never was a government without force. What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his duty, or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or rather no government at all."

Additionally, the Constitution makes it pretty clear in Article III, Section iii what it thinks of waging war against the United States.  And despite your bullshit to the contrary, the Second Amendment really doesn't explicitly repeal that section of the Constitution.

I know at least one of you doesn't understand the meaning of this passage, but I will quote it again anyway:

Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.–Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

I think Abagail Adams pretty much sums up the situation in regard to using the Second Amendment to justify insurrection:

Ignorant, restless desperadoes, without conscience or principals, have led a deluded multitude to follow their standard, under pretence of grievances which have no existence but in their own imaginations.

Insurrectionism comparison meme

Yeah! Yeah! I don't like memes, but this one is an interesting juxtaposition of two quotes:

A couple of things to ponder...

William Rawle on the Domestic Violence Clause (Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution):

"Not a word in the Constitution is intended to be inoperative, and one so significant as the present was not lightly inserted. The United States are therefore bound to carry it into effect whenever the occasion arises, and finding as we do, in the same clause, the engagement to protect each state against domestic violence, which can only be by the arms of the Union, we are assisted in a due construction of the means of enforcing the guaranty. If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union. If a faction, an inferior number, make such an effort, and endeavour to enforce it by violence, the case provided for will have arisen, and the Union is bound to employ its power to prevent it."

First off, he points out that

"Not a word in the Constitution is intended to be inoperative, and one so significant as the present was not lightly inserted."

That reiterates the point I keep mentioning from Marbury v. Madison (It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;–Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 [1803]).  So, no matter how much people may want to wish away the Militia from the Second Amendment, it would only make that "mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction". 

But I have also pointed out that Rawle said this about the Second Amendment:

In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable;yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion,to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

Rawle then goes on to point out: "The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The word "corollary" means "a proposition that follows from (and is often appended to) one already proved."

Again, that means that both clauses must be interpreted in relation to each other.

And if you want to take the next paragraph to mean personal arms:

"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."

I would point you to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, which gives congress the power to arm the militia.  It was that power that led to the Second Amendment being written: press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_16.html

But, it isn't so much the Second Amendment pseudo-scholarship that I want to address here as much as the belief that there is some "right" to revolt against the US Government. We also add to the overwhelming evidence that that is silly, something called the Domestic Violence clause:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This is what Rawle is talking about when he says:

If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union. If a faction, an inferior number, make such an effort, and endeavour to enforce it by violence, the case provided for will have arisen, and the Union is bound to employ its power to prevent it.

So, if you are going to try and use obsolete and obscure clauses in the Constitution to try and justify your silly "gun rights" position keep in mind you have a few things working against you:  history (Shays' Rebellion) and the document itself.

Of course, you could try and say that the we should use the modern meaning of the term "Domestic Violence".

BTW, Rawle wasn't the only one to point out this section of the Constitution addressed insurrection.  Here's Joseph Story:

§ 1808. The want of a provison of this nature was felt, as a capital defect in the plan of the confederation, as it might in its consequences endanger, if not overthrow, the Union. Without a guaranty, the assistance to be derived from the national government in repelling domestic dangers,which might threaten the existence of the state constitutions,could not be demanded, as a right, from thenational government. Usurpation might raise its standard,and trample upon the liberties of the people, while the national government could legally do nothing more, than behold the encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction might erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law; while no succour could be constitutionally afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters ofthe government. But this is not all. The destruction of the national government itself, or of neighbouring states,might result from a successful rebellion in a single state.Who can determine, what would have been the issue, if the insurrection in Massachusetts, in 1787, had been successful,and the malecontents had been headed by a Caesar ora Cromwell? If a despotic or monarchical governmentwere established in one state, it would bring on the ruin ofthe whole republic. Montesquieu has acutely remarked,that confederated governments should be formed only between states, whose form of government is not only similar,but also republican.

As I like to say, Some people who say they are defending the Constitution need to bone up on what they are claiming to defend.

Instead, they seek to make themselves the "domestic dangers" the Constitution was written to prevent.

What would a real insurgency in the US look like?

OK, you don't know the big difference between the British in the War for Independence or the US in places like Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Let's say it takes a lot more than guns to win a war: not to mention the cost is prohibitive in more than one way.

The problem is that you are fighting a civil war--not a foreign invader.  You will be the person starting the war, not the government.  Additionally, you will be trying to persuade people to join your side after you have made efforts to destabilise society.

Look a the reactions to Oklahoma City and Boston to get an idea of what you will be facing: more Boston than Oklahoma City.

And don't think your opponent isn't more than ready for you.

So, don't say "molon labe" if you can't deal with the reality of that scenario.

Of course, you all know way more than I do about this.  I can see that from your comments.{1}


See also:

• Military Will Defeat Any Militia Type Rebellion On US Soil According To Study
• Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future

{1} I should make this clear that this is sarcasm since you lot are too stupid to catch that on your own.

Essay Question on the Second Amendment:

Please explain how a document which states as its purposes is to "form a more perfect Union...insure domestic Tranquility" (Preamble).

Then makes it clear that the role of the militia is "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, clause 15).

We need to add in Article IV, Section 4, the Domestic Violence Clause:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."  

This provision in our Constitution requires that the federal government protect us from harms that we inflict upon ourselves, harms that threaten our health and our survival: in particular domestic insurrections.

Finally, Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That rules out "natural law" as being legal precedent (as well as other documents such as the Declaration of Independence in addition to misquotations from the founding fathers) .

With the real kicker being Article III, Section. 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Constitution seems pretty clear that insurrection is not a right.

Next we come to Amendment II:

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.

Now, I need to keep reminding you of the rule of construction: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

 "The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another."  That is items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as."

None of that is present in the above passages.


Simple form since I know the calibre of intelligence here:

• If the statute mentions it--it is covered.

• If the statute don't mention it--it ain't covered.

In this case, we do not see anything in the Second Amendment which mentions "fighting tyranny" (as it also lacks any specific mention of personal uses such as hunting or self-defence).


The rules to this are simple and found here. BTW, using the rules, in particular, Internal and external consistency, where it is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. That is, a  particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act.The Second Amendment applies to the Militia based upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 granting congress the power to ARM the Militia.

Please explain how things which are not specifically can be legally covered?  How do you read into the text things which not only aren't present, but are inconsistent with the document?

I can't wait to see the idiotic comments you will make--especially Greg who will show his ignorance of law, yet be all too willing to pontificate despite his lack of knowledge on the topic.

So you wanna fight the government with a pistol or rifle???

Gimme a break!

IR scanners will see you like you walked out of Chernobyl miles away.

And then there's the GMLRS (AKA the "Grid Square Removal System") and other (real) artillery:



The weather forecast--sunny with a high likelihood of steel rain.

As Matthew White says "The most likely outcome of a war between the Feds and the extreme right is that the extreme right is crushed like bugs, even before the network news anchors can move their mobile newsdesks, satellite link-ups and tactical hairdryers out to the battlefield."

Have a nice day!

Insurrection Theory

Time to repost something of Laci's from back in September of 2009.

It addresses recent comments by both Crunchy and Civillian76, that show a lack of depth in our national history that are the legitimate context in which to appreciate and understand the 2nd Amendment.

So while this will appear as posted by me (DG), the credit /attribution belongs to Laci.

Cross posted from Laci the Dog's blog, with permission (in case one of our former Anonymi wishes to complain about plagiarism or otherwise act like a scurvy troll):

Insurrection theory of the Second Amendment…

Yes, it is specifically mentioned that the militia’s purpose is to suppress insurrections, not foment them in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
Not to mention that congress has the power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
It is congress’s power to arm the Milita that the Second Amendment addresses (look up the entire text of Patrick Henry’s “Let every man be armed” speech, not the clip the “gun rights” crowd use). Also, check out this quote from Patirck Henry about Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: he wasn’t talking about self-defence, let alone insurrection!
I would also add in Article III, Section iii:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
To prove that the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment is sheer rubbish.
The problem with the Second Amendment “gun right” theory is that it divorces the Second Amendment from the Constitution, the inconvenient text of the Amendment relating to the militia, and reality.
The Consitution must be read as a whole, not pick and choose.

Laci adds:

From Story’s Commentaries regarding Article III, Section iii of Constitution:

§ 1292. The propriety of investing the national government with authority to punish the crime of treason against the United States could never become a question with any persons, who deemed the national government worthy of creation, or preservation. If the power had not been expressly granted, it must have been implied, unless all the powers of the national government might be put at defiance, and prostrated with impunity. Two motives, probably, concurred in introducing it, as an express power. One was, not to leave it open to implication, whether it was to be exclusively punishable with death according to the known rule of the common law, and with the barbarous accompaniments pointed out by it; but to confide the punishment to the discretion of congress. The other was, to impose some limitation upon the nature and extent of the punishment, so that it should not work corruption of blood or forfeiture beyond the life of the offender.

Another point, Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Quite frankly, there is a vast body of law that says waging war or advocating insurrection is not a constitutionally protected act.  Asserting that it is in anyway sanctioned demonstrates a serious ignorance of the Constitution and Constitutional history.
***************

Amen Laci - no cafeteria or a la carte constitutionalism!  Here here!  That the Constitution is intended to encourage or allow private gun ownership to oppose some variant of a Hitler is nonsense.  While Thomas Jefferson was off having fun in France, writing back his little snarky comment about blood watering the tree of liberty, it is not fairly and factually represented that the overwhelming response to that line applauding the occasional revolution / insurrection was emphatically negative from the other Founding Fathers. 

Those at home who had to cope with the threat of insurrection potentially undoing everything they had worked so hard to accomplish roundly condemned that bit of bullshit kibbitzing from someone sitting on his silk pantalooned arse from the relative safety and luxury of France.

More to the point is that the right wing nuts quote only that small part of what Jefferson wrote, leaving out all of the more important ideas which preceded that small part.  Let me make a minor contribution to Laci's post by providing it here --- since you can bet the gunloons lack the intellectual honesty to present the rest.

...such  a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them.

Sadly, Thomas Jefferson did not reckon on the future existence of such gross disinformation and misinformation entities as Fox Not-news Propaganda where people would actually become LESS well informed after viewing or listening than those who used no news source at all.  Or the factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest crap that the other right wing media sources spew - Rush Limbaugh comes to mind as just one example of many.  Nor do I believe that men like Jefferson anticipated the successful misinformation and evil pandering of right wing hate and fear mongers like Bryan Fischer and his ilk.  And last but by no means least we have the utter garbage that is so often promoted by the right wing blogosphere.

Jefferson believed that a little insurrection would simply prompt those governing, the RULERS, to  update and correct the information and do a little - dare I use the word - re-educating of those insurrectionist to the proper facts (ie what the right rejects - factual objective reality).  Jefferson under-estimated ignorance and the power of the Amygdala, probably because so few people comparatively had the right to vote in the U.S. under the original Constitution.  People had to be educated males who owned property - in other words had a certain level of knowledge and affluence.  We no longer believe it is acceptable to shoot a few of them and then try to persuade the rest with facts, and then pardon them.  Rather we take the side of the overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers who made insurrection and rebellion ILLEGAL, as the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Now we let the ignorant malcontents vote - and comment on blogs. 

At least some of us DO try to inform the restless uneducated would-be insurrectionist with guns of the facts.  But insurrection still is a crime, still contrary to the Constitution, and the notion that most of those who think they can tell when the government is no longer acting under the authority of the Constitution is wrong - dead wrong, thoroughly wrong, and of course, blatantly stupid as well as misinformed.

I look forward to Laci posting something about those who 'read a book......ONCE."

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

What? No mention of the Second Amendment in that passage??? Again, the Second Amendment cannot be construed as allowing insurrection, treason, or any other“change by violence, revolution and terrorism”.

Essay Question--How Does the Second Amendment negate Article III, Section iii?

Actually, this question goes further in depth than just relating to Article III, Section iii of the United States constitution which defines treason.

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

The militia’s purpose is to suppress insurrections, not foment them according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

Insurrection being defined by Webster (a good American Dictionary, not that evil OED) as:

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) mentions the insurrectionist theory as being off the table:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Explain how a document that says that the Militia is to suppress insurrections and only lists one crime, treason, which is pretty much the same thing as insurrection, allows for people to commit treason using the Second Amendment:

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.

.