Do politicians no longer serve at the pleasure of the people? Wasn't the second amendment a protection against tyrannical government? AREN'T THEY SUPPOSED TO BE TERRIFIED OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS?!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
LOL
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
Nice copy and paste job...with an inch deep understanding of the meaning behind what you're copying and pasting.
Go sit in the corner you stupid child. I've got a medal from the Civil War on my nightstand, it was my Great Great Great Grandfathers from Gettysburg, bitch.
I'm sure you do have a medal, silly goose. I have a relative who died at Antietam. But that doesn't change the fact that the very Founders who rebelled against England and put in the Bill of Rights, passed the Alien and Sedition actions and put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Founders knew what a domestic terrorist was. And while I agree that their definition wouldn't be the fed's definition today, it certainly isn't your definition either.
Edit: Let me apologize, I mistook your username for a foreign shill I see on here. Still, I stand by the rest.
Yeah and they owned people who worked for them without pay Obviously they aren't perfect but suggesting they would allow the current government to continue is asinine