Previous Post
Next Post

Some of Trump’s ‘Second Amendment People’ Already Believe They Have the Right to Fight Government Tyranny with Guns. That’s The Trace’s fake-incredulous take on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s now infamous improv: “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

I reckon Mr. Trump was referring to the last of The Four Boxes of Liberty (soap, ballot, jury and ammo). The truth-challenged real estate mogul doesn’t have a filter, always plays offense and doesn’t think for a moment about whether or not he’s offending anyone. Ever. But it was a joke. Kinda. In fact, Mr. Trump’s comment evokes the old expression “many a true word is spoken in jest.”

It’s certainly true that America’s Founding Fathers created and enacted the Second Amendment — prohibiting government infringement on the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms — as a bulwark against government tyranny. Not to protect Americans’ ability to hunt game. Or defend against foreign invasion.

The 2A “enables” Americans who wish to band together to overthrow a tyrannical government. You know, like the Founding Fathers did. After resisting their British overlords’ attempt to disarm them. By fiat and force of arms.

Even The Trace’s carefully selected historian — Duke Law School professor Darrell Miller — agrees with this “insurrectionist theory” of the Second Amendment. Albeit reluctantly, warily and, ultimately, unhappily.

The framers of the Constitution thought that preserving the right to bear arms might help the populace form a militia that could fight a standing army that turned against the people. The problem with the insurrectionist theory is there is always someone who thinks that tyranny is in the present.

Huh. Who could possibly think that there’s government tyranny right now? Gun nuts! Who are, of course, the worst sort of people. To make this assessment, history is Professor Miller’s guide:

When we look at the longer arch of our country’s history, the insurrectionist theory gets a serious black eye in the Civil War. The way Heller talks about the right to defend oneself against the government is the exact thinking that animated the secession of the southern states in the Civil War. The southern states said they were raising arms to assert a right to rebel against tyrannical government, but they did it on behalf of their power to keep slaves.

Secession is insurrection? I guess you could see if that way. But even if you do, Miller’s attempt to equate the Heller decision with southern slavery is flat-out ridiculous.

A Washington D.C. resident named Dick Heller simply wanted the right to keep and bear arms in the nation’s capital — not reinstitute white supremacy across the fruited plane. Or overthrow the government by force of arms — even though, yes, that’s what the Second Amendment is about in extremis.

Anyway, there’s only one good way for gun control advocates to discredit ANY idea that runs counter to the Progressive agenda (which is, ironically enough, the establishment of a left-wing tyranny): racism! Call gun rights advocates racists! Like this:

Have African Americans ever invoked the insurrectionist theory to protest government oppression?

The group that has the strongest claim on the right to rebel is comprised of people who “are seen as the bad guys with guns” by the gun rights movement. But I presume that when people think of the right to revolt, they think of Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson. They don’t think about Malcolm X or the Black Panthers, even though the Black Panthers were quite open about the fact that they were arming themselves as a check on the police force.

I doubt Trump would be extolling the virtues of armed black citizens patrolling protests in Ferguson or Baltimore as a legitimate exercise of their right to insurrection or the right to bear arms.

And I presume Professor Miller hasn’t read what this website and its readers have said on the subject of gun rights for all Americans — regardless of race, color, sexual orientation or creed (e.g., Memo to African Americans: Carry a Gun). Or done actual research on actual gun owners on this “presumed” racial bias.

What do you expect from a man who’s never earned his crust outside the worlds of academia or the judicial system? A statist whose views run counter to the spirit and letter of the document he pretends to understand. Professionally, no less. In short, if Professor Miller’s worried about armed insurrection, I’m happy.

If Trump wasn’t serious, should we still worry about what he said?

Yes. There are two viable political parties in the American democratic tradition. Donald Trump is the leader of one of them. He says that his political opposition is illegitimate, and if the Democrats win the election, it will be because of fraud in the electoral process. And then he throws in this comment about the Second Amendment as a way of overthrowing the government. I think it’s worrisome.

The irony is that Trump is the law-and-order candidate. To talk about broad societal disruption and criminals’ lack of submission to lawful authorities, and then say, “Maybe it’s ok to profess some desire to overthrow a legitimately elected government,” is inconsistent.

Strange that a Constitutional law professor fails to grasp the simple idea that a legitimately elected government can, in fact, be tyrannical. And then, eventually, get what it deserves. No matter whom the populace elects as its leader.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • What! You are a gun nut who has never looked up secession on his phone!!! color me shocked! okay not really. POTG are normal people after all.

        • PoTG status has nothing to do with this infraction, but Robert is claiming status as a Texan these days, and therefor the mistake is not to be over looked 😉

  1. There is a common misconception that the “south” somehow rebelled against the norm and fought to keep slavery. However, at the time, there were just as many, if not more, slaves in the “north.” Also, the conflict itself arose from the federal government over-stepping its bounds (much like today) and forcing their will upon the people. In this instance, the federal government had passed a law taxing domestic goods in hopes of “equaling” the competition with foreign goods. These goods were specifically produced in the “south.” The hope of the fed was to strengthen foreign relations. The result, however, was the forced reliance on cheap (free) labor that still managed to bankrupt the “south.” In order for “southerners” to survive, they had to become a foreign entity to avoid the “penalty” of making domestic product. As is always the case, the winners write the history books. And the Illinois crook Lincoln’s speech “freeing” slaves in all states in rebellion (notice no mention of freeing slaves in The Union), was a political ploy to gain the moral high-ground.

    If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s playing out in a very similar manor right now.

    • “However, at the time, there were just as many, if not more, slaves in the ‘north.'”

      Um, what?

      • Are you questioning that there were slaves in the North prior to the Civil War? Or the quantity?

        The quantity can certainly be questioned, although the records are not as good, and the use of slaves for agricultural purposes were not as prevalent or enduring as they were in the South.

        Nonetheless, the North did have slaves, and they were treated just as poorly.

        Of course, by the time the Civil War occurred, ‘slavery’ was technically abolished in the North. That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist…..

    • Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation was nothing but a tool he used to aid his prosecution of the civil war. The war was not won when it was issued. He had no legal ability to emancipate the slaves of a sovereign nation. It also didn’t apply to northern slaves. It was nothing but a ploy to try and get southern slaves to revolt in order to further drain the resources of the south. The slaves weren’t emancipated until the ratification of the 13th amendment.

      • The Emancipation Proclamation also gave the North the moral high ground in the conflict and was done strategically to keep European powers, particularly Great Britain from recognizing the CSA as independent and possibly assisting them. Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, many European nations saw the CSA as fighting against an unjust government, giving them the moral high ground. By placing the emphasis more on slavery, which had been abolished in all of the major European powers at the time, the North ensured that European support would not be forthcoming.

  2. There’s a joke floating through e-mails that I haven’t seen yet, just heard. But the gist of it takes the numbers from NICS, the numbers from Smith & Wesson, Ruger, then adds ammo sales, and says something like “If we were a violent group, you’d already know it.”

  3. Well yeah the Second is NOT about hunting. Deal with it leftwing scum. And I’m all for arming law-abiding black folks-like my wife.

    • Egg zactly. Hunting? Can you see them drafting the document up;

      “Ok, so we want to say freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government… all these things we need to codify as rights of the people and will put down that the state cannot interfere or infringe on these rights at all. Sound good?

      Ok, what’s next? How about *hunting*?”

      Uh huh. It’s no mistake they put down freedom of speech, freedom of religion and all of that and then added in right after; freedom to maintain the means to shoot the mfers if they try and stop all that freedom.

      That’s exactly what they meant. Truth be told it never occurred to the founders that we-the-people would end up so damn stupid that the phrase

      ‘the people can have any damn gun, or pile of them, they want, and this doesn’t mean for any damn hunting’

      should be added.

      • The founders were some of the wisest and prescient men of their age-I know they couldn’t conceive of a Barack or a hildebeast. Or gay “marriage”, lovin’ on moose-lims or for many-not having chattel slavery supporting their economy.

        • On the contrary, the Bill of Rights is evidence that the Founders could, indeed, conceive of people like Mr Obama and Ms Clinton.

  4. “Some of Trump’s ‘Second Amendment People’ Already Believe They Have the Right to Fight Government Tyranny with Guns.” – The Trace

    F A L S E

    Second Amendment People
    K N O W
    They Have the Right to Fight Government Tyranny with
    A R M S (up to, and including, whatever they can get our hands on. They are entitled to drop the ISS on your head if you give them the reason and they get the notion).

    The U.S. Declaration of Independence demands it, and only politely recites that, when it occurs (when someone gets such notion), we should “declare” our reasons before doing so.

    All “freedoms” recited in the Constitution and its Amendments are freedoms FROM government, government is WE THE PEOPLE. Enforcing that requires whatever means, and the necessary will.

    IF, upon the becoming OF A U.S. (F all the rest) CITIZEN, to be imbued of the fateful urge to TAKE UP ARMS to prosecute whatever is necessary to ensure and exercise their rights (EARNED OF LIBERTY, not just ‘bestowed’ of “freedom”),


    OF ARMS.

    Anyone attempting to prevent you from assuming the implementation of ARMS, is attempting to disarm you for the next civil war, AND CAN ONLY BE SAFELY ASSUMED TO BE ACCUMULATING ADVANTAGE OVER YOU TO OPPRESS YOU AND DO YOU HARM.

  5. “Some of Trump’s ‘Second Amendment People’ Already Believe They Have the Right to Fight Government Tyranny with Guns.”

    We don’t believe that, we KNOW it. Getting pretty sick of the whole racism accusation as well, when the gun-control movement is the side founded in racism. Blacks definitely should patrol their communities armed in times of strife. So should Hispanics, whites and racially mixed communities. Any whack-job opponents to minority gun-ownership and exercise are not true POTG, b/c true POTG recognize the freedom of all to exercise their 2A rights.

    And if you want to simplify everything into terms of race (as the self proclaimed “non-racist” progs like to do) and who has the most righteous justification for invoking insurrection against the govt, wouldn’t it be Indians (aka Native Americans)? Hey, they’ve been portrayed as bad guys with guns for way longer than black people have. Go to Pine Ridge or Rosebud or any reservation without a casino (which is most of them) and tell me how a history of forced government dependence has worked out.

  6. I love being called an insurrectionist. It underscores in bold letters the insanity of the left wing twits who spill this nonsense.

    Please, leftists, call more people insurrectionists, because everyone you smear that way will vote for Trump.

    And, leftists, while you’re at it why don’t you call me a “White Male B@stard.” You’re thinking it, so you might as well say it. I know you want to.

    C’mon, open the kimono. Show people who you really are, and they will recoil in horror.

    • I just threw up in my mouth a little thinking about hillary opening her kimono, pass the mind bleach please.

      • We’re fresh out of mind bleach. However, Naval Strength Gin is a pretty good substitute.

        Shall I start you with a double?

  7. “I reckon Mr. Trump was referring to the last of The Four Boxes of Liberty (soap, ballot, jury and ammo).”

    Or he was trying to rally gun owners, especially N.R.A. members to vote for him.

    • Personally, I’d rather help Trump win the election than have to fight a war. I’ve been telling libbies for months now that if Hillary wins we will see a second Civil War.

      • That’s kind of where I’m at. I’ve been telling them I’m voting for Trump because I’m a man of peace.

      • If you really want to get the message out, I dare you to go in front of a TV camera and say this, and without ambiguous wording at that. Say it like it is: if you don’t get what you want in an election, you will claim it by force of arms, killing people who disagree with you if that’s what it takes.

        I figure it wouldn’t even be hard to do, if you’re truly interested. Right now, any TV channel would jump on a chance to do an interview with a Trump supporter who would say this on camera.

  8. Selective liberal history that festers in the unicorn filled utopia within the halls of academia.

    Seems they could have figured it out real quick with Jeffersons remarks about the whole tree of liberty and what the fertilizer actually is. Ol’ Thomas J was kinda right back than, and still spot on today.

    Not so remembered in the safe spaces of universities today.

  9. I don’t believe anybody who would actually vote in this election is an insurrectionist. They might reserve the right to become insurrectionists, should the government cease to protect their rights and turn against them, but that’s hardly the same thing. Making it known one will defend oneself if attacked is not a threat, unless that attack is already taken as a given.

  10. Miller is not really a constitutional law expert. I had him when I was at UC Law; he taught Civil Procedure. Rather poorly I might add. Went to one of his second amendment speeches, he got destroyed in the Q&A by one of the other professors on staff. Very surprised he got hired at Duke.

  11. I have a newsflash for Mr. Professor. A legitimately elected government does not, I repeat, does NOT have carte blanche authority to do anything and everything. When a legitimately elected government declares their intention to silence me, steal my belongings, send me to a “re-education camp”, or ensure that thugs and rapists can have their way me and my family, I have no choice but to come out swinging. And my actions will be righteous, unlike the politicians, bureaucrats, and enforcers who set out to silence, steal from, imprison, or endanger their political enemies.

    THAT is why we have the Second Amendment.

  12. “There are two viable political parties in the American democratic tradition. Donald Trump is the leader of one of them.”

    No, Trump is NOT the leader of the Republican party, He is the Republican nominee for president, nothing more.

    As an unfortunate truth, there not only does not seem to be any actual leader of the Republican party at this moment in history, it also seems that the Republican Party is hell bent on suicide. Somebody call the NSSF, quick!

  13. “Some of Trump’s ‘Second Amendment People’ Already Believe They Have the Right to Fight Government Tyranny with Guns.”

    Dear government,
    If you don’t wish for gun owners to become armed insurrectionists, Then leave them the fuck alone.
    Arkansas Kurt, would be insurrectionist

  14. Wait, wait , wait… Since when was his comment about insurrection? Why just yesterday it was all about calling for the “2A people” to assassinate Hildabeast! I know its true, Don Lemon tells me so! (I swear, this guy is channeling Pierced Organ the way he interrupts, engages in ad hominems, and basically tries to prevent anyone who disagrees with him from answering a question or speaking. He did it with Sheriff Clark too.

  15. The best part of the whole thing is watching the panic when someone mentions something that can actually have an effect on the agenda

  16. “…Reignites Insurrectionist Accusations”


    Your headline implies the anti-gunners at some point stopped accusing gun owners of being insurrectionists.

    I believe very strongly for that to be untrue.

    I mean the part about them having ever stopped accusing us being untrue. They never, and won’t, stop accusing us of whatever they think will advance their agenda of total control.

Comments are closed.