2nd Amendment: Keep Tyrannical Government In Check
Articles,  Blog

2nd Amendment: Keep Tyrannical Government In Check

martin walker’s is on the line he is
uh… the host of armed american radio national syndicated the author of
lessons from armed america and a concealed carry expert the website is harmed american uh… radio dot com mark
welcome to the program i don thanks very much for having the i
appreciate the opportunity to talk with you in your audience thanks for joining
us so outside of the obvious uh… rudy running or uh… a weapon to protect yourself well in your home your their vehicle or
you know walking around outside uh… and the uh… uh… partitioning why eight would we have to have a gun personal to start but i mean it you know
i i owned i mean that what you’re just pretty much covered the reasons we would so if under shoot on top of everything
else in there used by the millions of law-abiding
citizens responsibly every decried graham aspersion myself prompt this so that’s sad what do you say to the people who call themselves gun advocates who say that they need guns in case the
government turns too radical well you know it was in the the second
amendment for smaller than about duck hunting or
hiking it was written many many years ago bill gertz was ratified seventeen ninety one two hundred twenty
two years ago westmont actually december fifteenth uh… in we have to remember that v
pounding fathers i had just bought what they believed to
be a tyrannical government andover through what they believe to be trampled
government in a freedom uh… things change there’s no question
about that we have to get past i think the divisiveness and he’s saying that
the second memo was written so that we could overthrow our own government march said it was remember way but the
second man that was written to keep a two radical government checkout snippet claimed on which i would ask you to
provide me with a any evidence of that whatsoever i’ve read most of the uh…
most of the ratifying convention debates on the site and then and everything good leaders is reference
to self defense is reference to a militia they can
protect this that the free state of the nation uh… james madison his second draft
said a free country he change that to a free statement third draft of the second them in to satisfy the
people from you know basically patrick henry and george mason who are concerned
that their stable issues which were also there slate patrols might get disarmed by the federal government because the
article one section eight powers that the federal government took two arm malicious and you know if they chose
not to harm in the state would have the power harm but nowhere did i see any reference to
overthrowing the government that they had just create no i don’t think they were referring to
overthrowing the government to period just created and what people need to
understand it but the second-amendment exists in this
country it is a ratified and for going to have a discussion moving forward we
have to understand where we are today and what we’re going to do to stop so i
don’t buy the wasn’t put their chip to stop it too radical government i i would
submit that the that the you know there were two primary purposes for the second
amendment as as it stands the first was to prevent us from ever
having a standing army and there’s you know ample evidence of
that i mean i was britain at that time at the time ratification that was visit
to the standing armies are an impediment to to as freedom uh… and in various language the same
was written into the constitution massachusetts connecticut pennsylvania i
mean a number of states and had to already literally written out in their
constitutions saying that they they would not be standing armies the first
draft of the of the second moment said standing armies during times of peace
the forget the phrase but they don’t work done were at that a call to a free people and they did not give because of the
founders they had seen bailey new history europe over and over delivered
in countries have been taken over by military coup and they did not want and that’s why that’s why the only appropriation that
congress can make in the entire constitution that is
limited congress can establish social security
to last forever they connect they can establish welfare programs a last
forever they can establish uh… in telephone system where where i
a lot except for the army arm isabel appropriations for the army
have to be revisited every two years any or these are a lot and the reason was because most of the
founders didn’t wanna stay have an arm they want us to be like switzerland and
have a malicious at that point and that was controlled at
the state level and so that when i was the first reason
in the second reason was that the southern states in georgia
californication of carolina north carolina and virginia the state militias were also slave
patrols they they unit or the countryside looking for runaway slaves
in and inspected slave quarters periodically and they had to be armed to
do that to you had delayed vetoing be stern virgin or western virgina yet
attended one ratio of afro-americans or white people and what they were living
in fear of their slaves revolting in the and the arm alicia you know put that
down so it didn’t but none of that he’ll be is is about putting down our own government
all of all of that is about protecting our government and natural who’s talking about putting
down our government i’m certainly not and to get into a debate uh… when he said i’m still do what we
the second memo was to stop it radical government finance and it wasn’t it was
to protect us again what if you want to save the dwelling link and invaded as
the war of eighteen twelve they were too radical is only meant no sir what i was saying what the people
understood just thought to be too radical government the second amendment
is an existence to keep a government to keep up from peter radical government we we can
debate this all day long the fact of the matter is but the second amendment
exists in are a lot of people whose country who don’t like the second
amendment what i submit to you is that we’ve got to go forward we can go back
and read refight history all we want okay let’s go forward this economic says no in order to have a
well-regulated militia that be necessary to the security of the free state the right of individuals to to that i’m
doing this remember some sure i’ve got a couple was wrong about the right of
individuals to have too they have to keep and bear arms to
canberra flooding fresh thank you were where do we sign up for the militia
initial we require i’d propose that we rename the national guard is every state has one the you know this
commission national bear the you know whatever state you’re in mark uh… this
national guard there the weary nameless the national militia and so if you are a member of the
national mall issue you haven’t absolute wire percent certifiable right to a
weapon and we don’t you know we talking about
we can have a collective our individual rights argument is that where where what not and i’m sorry we said let’s go
for the we have the second amendment it’s written awaits written let’s go
forward and so on same ok fine it’s written let’s go forward with that
semantics we have three hundred plots million firearms in the hands of over one hundred plus
million private individuals today and that is not going to change yet it’s
over a hundred million if that’s that’s not going to change is not over a
hundred million apples it’s okay because it is because it’s
about one in eight not about one and three uh… what whatever number you want a
pro at it the fact of the matter is we have hundreds of millions of firearms
gets in the hands of million books which make it look at
what i have a solution for that you know when we think about the doctors
could kill people we said we are going to register doctors
we’re going to license them make sure that they’re proficient and we’re gonna regulate them when we
discover the cars could kill people in the nineteen twenties nineteen-thirties
we said okay here to register your car do you have to have been a is a
liability insurance low and doctors all set that liability insurance and with
they have to prove you have to prove proficiency f ever driver’s license why
not do the same thing with with weapons say they can kill people so let’s register them just like you
register kar let’s have liability insurance for the weapon and for the
owner and have proof of proficiency i’ve been through georgia police academy i
can demonstrate my proficiency with the weapon uh… you know i’m guessing that you can
too uh… arsenic anya but let us you know
let’s say a camp shirt you have a right to a gun but that you know you also have
a right to free speech p_k_ health fired at private theater its own its there is no such thing as an unlimited
right idyllic card i don’t have a problem
quite frankly i think it was hit with shock even surprise you to uh… to to understand that like pink
you and i agree on more pink then we disagree on the net is keeping firearms out of the hands of bad people who
shouldn’t have fire and children uh… in chocolate and i have an eight
year old up and you are not argue that iva as a responsible gun owner i have a very
large what i refer to as a guerilla place in my home or my firearms are
capped colonial sort out what’s referred to as a gun vault you’ve probably seen
him with the fingertips on it that gives me
ensign accession i needed to stop it then in the better the night well my firearms
are are kept away from from children than anybody else that uh… but that i
don’t want to have been i so would you go along with violent street firearms
like likely tree cars no no i wouldn’t go along with that i i
wouldn’t at all it is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and it’s not a constitutional right to
rhodes is an article one section eight


  • TylerNutify

    "Driving is not a constitutional right."

    Why is that a problem? What constitutional principal is being violated by requiring a firearms license if the license cannot be denied without cause? Or registration of a firearm that confirms that it is your property that cannot be taken away without due process?

    And by the way, no state can deny you a driver’s license without cause, because that would create a "equal protection under the law" constitutional issue.

    I don't see a problem.

  • Michael Gibb

    There is actually a constitutional right to cars. The constitution does protect private property, and cars are property, therefore the Constitution protects your right to own a car.

  • Ōkami-san

    Is it true doctors were registered – because they can KILL people? THAT was the reason? I'd like some evidence to support that claim.
    Is it true cars are registered also because they can KILL people? THAT was the whole reason why cars are registered?

    What about chainsaws? Are they registered? How about lawn mowers? Do we register razor blades? Rat poison?

    I'm sure registration is more about rent seeking on the part of various organizations than about 'because XY or Z can kill people'

  • Mick Logos

    Ha ha this Mark Waltersguy…let's get past the "semantics" of the Founding Fathers! LMFAO. You see how these lawless troublemakers get everyone all riled up? If you have a guy like this in town..you keep a close eye on him. He'll be the guy starting all the trouble and then he'll bail out on you when the cops or the military show up. Love how Thomm asks him if he is inferring its the U.S. government is the tyrannical government..and he's like "NOOOO. I never said that." A joker..charlatan.

  • Mick Logos

    They are nothing but gun salesman. NOTHING else. See what the Obama Administration does after the Sandy Hook thing cools down…BACK TO BUSINESS.

  • Enkidu

    Knives can kill as well as,bats,dogs,bricks,toys,bathtubs,ice on the ground,plastic bags,snowstorms,razors,hands,government,hammers,string,cows,football,boats,
    Just about everything can kill you in one way shape or form. If you want to be safe from death then lock your self in a cell and problem solved. If you dont want firearms then dont own one. If you do then that is your right. The gun debate is over. You are not getting them, PERIOD.

  • Michael Gibb

    Maybe you should be allowed to do cocaine rather than be locked up for it. The War on Drugs is a failure. And yes, I am serious. The US Constitution does protect private property, and cars are private property; you bought it, you own it. If you don't believe me then answer this question: the car or other vehicle you drive and park in your garage, does your government own it or do you?

  • airthrow

    Sorry I used Cocaine which was a bad example to explain to you why your logic is circular and therefore flawed. Just because something is your posession does not mean that you have a constitutional right to it, you cannot build a nuke even from scratch from your own materials, "your property". Again please try your awesome junior constitutional law logic of "it's mine therefore I can have it no matter what" against a judge.

  • judyleasugar97

    The only discussion I've seen is cutting out military assault riffles for civilians, and preventing the mentally ill and criminal from having guns. Where do you guys get the idea the govt wants to take away all your guns?

  • oolong2

    So what exactly is "the government" to you? All governments are simply sytems of management made up of various people.

    It's easy to demonize something as "the other" when you don't fully understand it.

    This is exactly who propoganda works. Whether it is blacks, muslims, jews, etc. People always look for some group to point fingers at and demonize.

    It is intellectually lazy, because you react out of fear and ignorance instead of actually trying to understand what the problem is.

  • sklanger

    Well-regulated applies to the militia, not to the people and their right to bear arms.

    An armed populace enables the maintenance of a trained, equipped, "well-regulated" militia, not the other way round.

  • Michael Gibb

    It's not circular. It is basic fact that cars are property, and also that property rights are protected under the Constitution. Both of those are undeniable facts. And my question remains unanswered: Can the government seize your car or other vehicle without cause or reason?

    This is about cars because while we own them they are regulated, and for the same reason we cannot own nukes, for the sake of the public good. If one piece of property is regulated why not another, why not guns?

  • John Smith

    NO FREEDOM IS UNLIMITED. NO FREEDOM IS ABSOLUTE.Just because you had freedom to talk does not mean you can make a prank call to the police of a robbery.

  • sklanger

    I didn't say it was absolute — just that you are completely misreading the amendment; "well-regulated" has nothing to do with the scope of the right.

  • Amy Adams

    "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
    — Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

  • sklanger

    Whether they need regulation or not doesn't turn on the "well-regulated" part of the amendment, which only modifies "militia." Otherwise only gun-owners who are part of the militia may be regulated, which is surely not what you mean.

  • kandy1958

    The second Amendment WAS written to overthrow a tyrannical govt. Read a little Thomas Jefferson. If you haven't seen any evidence of that you didn't put any effort into looking. And yes, the Founders studied history and it wasn't military coup they were afraid of most, it was King George types who don't listen to their citizens. AND LOL Let me applaud you for suggesting that the Nat Guard may have weapons. BUT the people can't? How do we protect ourselves form the well regulated militia? sporks?

  • kandy1958

    Tommy boy, your kitchen knives can kill people too. Should you register them? Mmmhh what else? Baseball bat? Register it. Tire iron? register it. Plastic bag? Register. Dining room chair? Register. Nuts. Now tommy, take a moment and look into the views on guns from other "great leaders" such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, then tell me again where you stand.

  • Wisco Kidd

    30 round clip? Hand them out free at Wall Mart! BushMaster! Named after the beatrified Bush Presidents, the saints of the United States of ZioNaziland. Let's give a tax break to the first company that makes a reliable 50 round clip. Every member of the NRA has a right to a rocket launcher. Outlaw Candy stores and replace them with gun stores. All good god fearing people need fully automatic weapons to defend their 2nd amendment right. Guns are sexy they make my girlfriend wet and my cock hard


    I really respect Thom's work having first discovered him back watching the Men Who Killed Kennedy. I own three books by both he, and Lamar Waldron. Couple of sharp guys.
    Tyrannical Government! This is not to suggest American needs to arm its self for any possible exchange of fire with our own military. I feel its lunacy to think a US military member would respect any order to engage their own.

    With that In mind, Thom of all people should know what a "Tyrannical Government mite look like.

  • Bean Cube

    Should we call today's GOP crisis creators a "tyrannical government" against majority of the American population yet? We better have our guns ready for the 2014 election in case GOP treason crisis occurs again.

  • reifsneider

    just because the 2nd amendment is there for protection against the government, and currently the government wants to ban certain items that may or may not be related to guns…. DOES NOT fucking mean that the government is trying to disarm the nation and march down wall street in full force against the people. They are not trying to take everyone's rights away, so all you people saying that need to stfu and stop spreading these rumors that stupid people believe

  • PacificCircle1

    Art. 1, sect 8, part. 15, US Constitution –
    [The Congress shall have the power] To provide for calling forth the militia to EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURECTIONS….
    I am sick of the tyranny from the misuse of the 2nd.

  • WASD282

    Wrong, read the Declaration of Independence and read some of the founding fathers famous quotes.

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " -Thomas Jefferson

    “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -Thomas Jefferson

    “A free people ought…to be armed”
    ― George Washington

  • WASD282

    Oh ok the 2nd amendment wasn't put in place to prevent a tyrannical government? Ok i'll trust this guy over Thomas Jefferson our founding father.
    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " –Thomas Jefferson

    Yeah i'll trust this random guy on a YouTube video over James Madison our founding father.
    "“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective
    way to enslave them.”

  • WASD282

    Do you even know the definition of tyranny? You sound like an idiot, our government all but abolished our amendment by flying surveillance drones that can be armed with missiles over our country, I could list a thousand reasons I believe our government has been hijacked by tyranny but YouTube comments are only limited to 500 characters, 400 of which I already used.

  • WASD282

    I literally know of websites I could go to right now that will ship me fully automatic guns, RPG's, you name it to the US, they're illegal websites sure, but they hide their IP address real well and you need to go into the deepweb to get to them, it really is NOT hard, i'm just a person not interested in buying the guns and I can find it, imagine what a mass murderer can find. From what I read on an article their trick is to ship the gun in pieces that you assemble yourself once they all arive.

  • WASD282

    Read the constitution? Nowhere in the constitution does it say you cannot bear arms, it says the complete opposite.

    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    –George Mason

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty teeth.” —George Washington

  • PacificCircle1

    Where did I say someone can't bear arms? The 2nd is current constitutional law!
    No right is unlimited. Do you think you could have an anti-aircraft gun? Or a bazokka? Few do.

  • Abouna R.

    I believe that Thom Hartmann does not know what the heck he is talking about. Just listening to him, sounds like he really has not read the Federalist Papers at all. The framers of the Constitution very much wanted the citizens to be armed to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, such as we have now.

  • Larry Williams

    This is real simple…. When you take away guns from the law abiding citizens, only the criminals will have guns and in turn you make the citizens into "Targets" and "Easy Victims". Yes, there are many quotes from Jefferson on this subject. Google: John Petrie’s Collection of
    Thomas Jefferson Quotes.

  • Phreakwar PC Custom Builds

    Who has taken anybody's guns? What state are they in? And I really don't care what Jefferson had to say. However, he NEVER said any of the quotes WASD282 claims. And neither did Washington.

  • InfoWhoresOfficial

    Yeah because they were tyrants (sarcasm) anyways yeah they're applying the second amendment to the future by talking about the people defending themselves from the government in case, it gets tyrannical and takes away liberty from the people. ugh its not hard for you people to understand -____-

  • InfoWhoresOfficial

    I was hoping we could look more like communist North Korea. Will you join me in worshipping Obama our God? If not your a racist evil white!

  • GhostHawk1776

    "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence. Does that answer your Q?

  • TheWindjunkie

    Until the host stops cutting off his guest I cant' take him seriously. Intelligent men don't debate that way. Let the truth of your words carry the message– not the speed and timing of your delivery. This isnt' boxing.

  • Andrew Benyon

    It is worth noting at the outset that this fear of tyranny suddenly arising belies a fundamental misreading of how authoritarian regimes actually come to power. Namely, it assumes a false dichotomy between “the people” on one side and “the government” on the other. Government is not some foreign entity imposed on the people, which would only arise from a foreign country conquering the United States (not going to happen). Rather democratic government is derived from the people. A tyrannical government could only arise in the US with a majority of the population supporting it due to some economic or military crisis: in reaction, say, to a heavily armed minority attempting to enforce its will on the rest of the country. Government does not just “suddenly” become tyrannical, it NEVER has in the developed world

    Anyway, hypothetically now, don't for one minute think that armed citizens would stop you're government from turning tyrannical, its a comical argument. Do you think the government with the mightiest, and most technologically advanced armed forces the world has ever seen would be deterred or defeated by armed citizens? Really? Aircraft carriers, special forces, nuclear weapons, drones…… What is even more unlikely though, is that a democratically elected government would become tyrannical, when exactly did this last happen in the developed world?

    The idea that militias are the bulwark against tyranny typically begins in a faulty reading of American History. The Revolutionary War was not won by Militias, but rather the Continental Army with considerable help from the French. While it is probably an exaggeration to suggest that the Militia was completely worthless during the War, that is far closer to reality than the myth promulgated by some pro-gun advocates. And the Militias that did significantly contribute to the cause were organised by the states and represented a well-disciplined, cohesive fighting force that mirrored the Continental Army, not the minutemen of lore.

    However, gun advocates claim, armed populations never have the chance to stop tyranny as they are disarmed first. There are many cases though where this is demonstrably untrue. Yemen is currently the second most heavily armed country in the world (per capita), and it is currently a battlefield between a Western dictatorship and various Jihadist organizations who have no love for a free State. Saudi Arabia and several other Arab countries are heavily armed, with what can only be described as tyrannical governments. Iraq before the 2003 US invasion is perhaps the best example. Saddam Hussein falls under any definition of a tyrannical dictator, yet the Iraqi people were very heavily armed with a gun culture mirroring that of the US. How armed a population is, has absolutely no empirical bearing on how free that society is.

  • Matthew Bissonnette

    Though in the Western world our
    citizens more often then not have had complete freedom from outright
    and blatant tyranny, we have never suffered adversity at the hands of
    a tyrannical system of control which denies men and women to be
    treated with some semblance of dignity and respect. But there are
    many of our fellow humans who endure tyrannical forms of injustice
    perpetrated against the downtrodden and who must persevere over such
    adversity. But for any people who suffer under tyranny and injustice,
    such people must ask themselves a fundamental question; what is
    better? Is it better to live a long life suffering injustice or live
    a short life as a man who is free? Would you rather live a long life
    living under the thumb of your oppressor or give your life to strike
    just one blow against those who oppress you. Any people who endure
    hardship at the hands of a tyrant have the inherent and just right to
    fight their oppressor by any means necessary as long as you do not
    become a tyrant yourself.

  • Rufus477

    Doesn't matter what you think or believe. It matters what "WE THE PEOPLE" believe.
    "WE THE PEOPLE" believe we have a natural right to own and bear Arms. This is necessary to keep a tyrannical government in check.
    To prove my point. Let's say our existing government deems it necessary to take away weapons from it's citizens. This is what Stalin, Mao, and other socialist/communist governments did in the process of removing power from its people.

    Right to a militia and right to bear Arms are two different things.

    Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

  • King Yea Yea

    Don't up vote just because of the assumed title the guy talkin to guy on phone sounds like he is attacking the constitution !

  • Torin

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
    – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

  • Jason Brough

    It annoys me when people use bad arguments for things I agree with, shouting fire in a crowded theater was only unprotected speech from 1919-1969.


  • Gina Titnaw

    Thom Hartmann is dishonest in his framing of the right to own and bear arms in the context of the constitutional convention as it was universally accepted that the people had the right to keep and bear arms, so this was not debated. If you want to know what the founders thought then read their writing.
    "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…" – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
    "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." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

    Then Harmann moves to militia, "where do I sign up?", let's see who the founders said the militia is: "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
    Tench Coxe: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

    Then Harmann moves to regulation and licensing, the truth about license is to limit the number of practitioners. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q71hrwUcu0

    Regulation should be used to protect the rights of others, not to interfere with rights.

  • robinsss

    they were not referring to overthrowing the government that they had   just created because they did not   create a tyrannical government………..here's a Jefferson quote about tyranny………………''''''''''the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants'''''''……………..this refers to a violent revolution

  • Casey Bowman

    Type in: Lysander Spooner – Constitution of no authority, no treason., Herbert Spencer – Governments were created to enslave the people., American officials holding dual citizenship.,Talmud., Money as debt., Dr Tony Martin., The exodus decoded – Simcha Jacobovici., Dr Jordan Peterson., A License is for commercial purposes. enjoy

  • Wayne Brewster

    Being a doctor or driving a car aren't Constitutional rights dumbass. You do sound like you went through a police academy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *