The US right is as much of a terrorist threat as are Muslims

First off, there is nothing in the Constitution which allows for a "right" to rebellion.  If Anything, the Constitution is very clear that it prohibits waging war on the US (Article III, Section iii).

Unfortunately, I do not hear many people calling bullshit when people say it is their "right" to own a gun to fight the evil government.

But ponder this:

Let's not forget Timothy McVeigh:

Or Anders Breivik:

Maybe we need to worry about white guys as much as Muslims.

You may want to actually bone up on the Constitution before you defend it.

It seems that Ammoland took a poll and found a significant percentage of its readers believe that armed revolution is somehow an option.

Once again, From the United States Constitution, Article III, Section iii, states:

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.

I know you people have serious problems with reading and understanding the English language, but this is pretty clear in its meaning.

As Joseph Story said about this:

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.

The Second Amendment in no way repeals this section of the Constitution--no matter what your diseased minds may tell you.

While you may wish to believe that "libtards" somehow are the ones destroying the Constitution, you are obviously wrong in that assertion if you support people who would overthrow this nation by force of arms for whatever reason you would go against the government run under the framework of the United States Constitution.

I strongly suggest that you reassess your position on this matter.

Should you find that you still advocate the use of arms against the United States realise that you are a traitor.

Those aren't my words, those are the words of the document you claim to support.

While this song is about Palestinians, I think this applies to right wing assholes who claim to hate Muslims while being willing to wage war against their own nation:

Meen erhabe?

Good guys with guns or.....

You make the call.

Why aren’t mass shootings called terrorism?

MSNBC recently asked this question.

Why aren't all mass shooters considered terrorists even if not "politically" motivated?  There is no common definition of terrorism.  On the other hand, Common definitions of terrorism refer to violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Other than a crazy person has no identifiable religious, political, or ideological goal, they do have the other two parts of the definition: the use of violent acts which target or disregard the safety of civilians.  We can debate whether actual religiously, politically, or ideologically motivated terrorists are crazy as well.

The real issue here is the use of violence for some "goal", whether real, or something which is completely insane.  In fact, some people would say that anyone who feel the need to resort to violence is not completely with it.

The funny thing is that the pro-gun side appears to be pro-terrorist for some weird reason judging by the comments they made to MSNBC.  Additionally, the Constitution is pretty clear that the use of terror is unconstitutional (see Article I, Section 8, clause 15; Article III, Section iii, and Article IV, Section 4).  I would add that the Second Amendment does not explicitly contradict these clauses (but that is another post).

As Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) pointed out:

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.

The problem is that some people who claim to believe in the Constitution have absolutely no idea what it says or intends.  After all, why would a document that states as one of its purposes that it is to "ensure domestic tranquility" would allow for anarchy?

I would also add that if the people advocating overthrowing the government were left wing, they would be arrested in a heart beat.

On the other hand, I would be very wary of anyone who was openly advocating the overthrow of the United States and wasn't being regularly visited by the police.

Does the term agent provacateur mean anything to you?