Yeager’s case a test of the 2A intent to preserve the right to resist tyranny

[elehhhhna]

LOLOLOL

From youknowwhere, exact quote: Yeager’s case could be a legal test of the 2A intention of the founders to preserve the right to “resist tyranny” and the 1A right to declare one’s intention to do so!


HAhahahahah good one.

[samsingh]

1. yell fire

[elehhhhna]

2. say the b-word at the airport

[samsingh]

3. exactly

[elehhhhna]

4. busted thanks in part to the patriot act

and existing caselaw, of course.

[The Magistrate]

5. People Mistake This All the Time, Ma'am: You Have a Right To Resist, But Not To Succeed At It

"If we win, we're the loyal army: if we lose, we're the rebel army."

[elehhhhna]

6. yep, patriot or terrorist - labels depends on whether you win or lose

truedat, sir

[CJCRANE]

7. The 2A doesn't even mention "tyrannical government".

"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".

I take that to mean that the "militia" is a defense against foreign invaders.

[TheMadMonk]

8. Tell the dickhead to read the PREAMBLE.

That is where the bit about resisting opressive government resides. And it says when the shit gets bad/opressive enough, you THROW OUT the constitution/rule of law, the whole kit and kaboodle and start from scratch.

Why? Because otherwise the new rascals, simply take up where the old left off: eg. Extraordinary rendition, extra-territorial killing, and the whole gods bedamned PATRIOT Act.


2A has nothing to do with that. 2A is for defending/upholding the existing system against threats which would tear it down, or rewrite it for a priveliged few.

Yeager's threats in fact make him arguably a legitimate 2A target.