The right to an armed revolution is not explicitly documented in the constitution. However items such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to freedom of assembly, right to freedom of speech and others when combined provide the necessary framework for armed revolution. I am not saying this is the correct way to go about change, however the people and the politicians should read and understand that rights granted to us as citizens of the USA by our constitution.
Um, sir, the Declaration of Independence is not the same thing as the Constitution. You see, Jefferson was writing against Great Britain, the mother country, whereas the Constitution was for the new country, the United States of America.
Logically, this is fallacious: a sweeping generalization. Of course people have a right to keep and bear arms and a right to assemble, but it does not logically follow that such freedoms are applicable to armed revolution against the government. Americans who abuse our freedoms so they can conspire against the government as armed revolutionaries are disgraces as Americans, even worse than foreign terrorists who seek the same ends.
Are you saying that no tyrannical government no matter how corrupt deserves revolution? How many happy pills are you taking?
I ran away "illegally" from my native commie country. (Forgot to return on schedule ) While sitting in a refugee camp in Turkey I got 2 years prison time in case I returned. In your incredibly naive American(?) stupid mind that's what makes me a felon doesn't it? I bet you voted for dumb-ass Obama.
What action would you consider to equate with "conspire" ? Murmmering Grumbling Swearing One finger salutes Green custard pie in the face Owning a fully automatic FN with silencer Extreme distrust of all things Federal Allow me to venture a guess, you are a retired federal bureaucrat, who worked at the US Bureau of Clocks, Watches and Digital Time Apparatus [ USBCWDTA ]
Jefferson outlined the rationale for forming a new government. King george could have said, "You know what? you guys are right. I've been a real pain in the ass, and its about damn time we have a much better set of rules to run this show." Instead, the response from the British Throne was musket fire. As a result, the framers of the constituion (after learning the lesson that governments often fail to respond to logic but often do respond to force) added the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Your argument seems to indicate that rights not explicitly outlined within the constitution do not exist. Perhaps, you can point to where in the U.S. Consitution the framers outlined the 'right to privacy.' The word "privacy" does not ever appear in the United States Constitution, yet clearly, SCOTUS indicated in Roe v Wade "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy" does exist. The U.S. Government derives its powers at the consent of the governed. Our current leadership in Washington would do well to remember that. - Spydertrader
Once again, Mercor shows his total ignorance. First off, any strategic military effort in Afghanistan will be a hundred times more difficult than Iraq because of the simple fact that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is extremely mountainous; there is virtually no government outside of Kabul, and more importantly, Afghanistan has ZERO infrastructure. In fact, Baghdad makes Kabul look like Los Angeles. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june09/mckiernan_03-17.html As for Guantanamo, the people being held there are detainees who are awaiting prosecution via a military tribunal. They are not POWs. But leave it to Mercor to claim otherwise.