Guns to protect against U.S. government? Constitution doesn’t protect that


Today, May 16, 2014, a group of yahoos promises 10 million armed Americans will descend on Washington to force changes in government, maybe depose the President, and have other yahoo fun squealing tires, drinking beer, and scaring good folks with the guns they wave.

They’ll be lucky to have a thousand people show up and politely decline to run afoul of the District of Columbia’s gun laws and the concomitant prison time.

If they stay out of jail, it won’t be because the Constitution protects them.

Yes, the Second Amendment says they have — and you and I have — a right to “keep and bear arms.”

Yahoos, true to their yahoo ways, really don’t read the Constitution thoroughly.  Otherwise, I suspect they’d be more circumspect.

Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution defines using those arms against the government, levying war against the U.S., as “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. 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.

Neither the First Amendment nor the Second Amendment excuses treason.

How will today turn out in Washington?  There may be some traffic tie-ups.  There always are. Anything out of the ordinary, though?  Not if citizens use common sense, and stick to the Constitution that protects their protests.

Yahoos, in one of their nicer portrayals from the 1947 edition of Gulliver's Travels.  Image from Wordmall.

Yahoos, in one of their nicer portrayals from the 1947 Crown edition of Gulliver’s Travels; drawing by Luis Quintanilla. Image from Wordmall.

Update:  As of Friday afternoon, the rally fizzled.  Organizers blamed the rain.  Proof that rain falls on the unjust, too?

More:

About these ads

7 Responses to Guns to protect against U.S. government? Constitution doesn’t protect that

  1. cheekos says:

    Several points about the Second Amendment to the Constitution: the Supreme Court (in 2008) apparently didn’t consider the context of why the Amendment was needed then, back in the 1870s; the term “law-abiding Citizens” is characteristically vague; and it failed to consider rights of people like Eric Martinez (killed at UC-Santa Barbara) to live. The Gun Industry money, with an assist from the NRA, seems to supersede Victim’s Rights. Why is that?

    Like

  2. Eli Rabett says:

    It rained like hell in the early morning.

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    That’s why readers are regarded as revolutionaries, and why lawyers and teachers are often the first to die in tyrannical “revolutions.”

    As Shakespeare warned us: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/the-anti-teacher-anti-lawyer-anti-education-anti-math-anti-civil-rights-truth-behind-kill-all-the-lawyers/

    Like

  4. Ellie says:

    Your problem, Ed, is that you are reading the entire document instead of just picking out sentences here and there that suit your fancy.

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    The Second Amendment says you may keep and bear arms.

    Unless you bear them against the U.S. Then it’s treason. Read the Constitution.

    Like

  6. Black Flag® says:

    “Keep and Bear Arms”

    Pretty clear to me that’s not treason, Ed.

    You are adept at making up your own stories.

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,192 other followers

%d bloggers like this: