Ballot box to bullet box

[scarneck]

Video right here

The woman (who is running for office in Virginia) says "War is inevitable. We had the chance to fight at the ballot box but now we have to resort to the bullet box!"
She then goes on to talk about how the amendment is there not for hunting but for revolution againt tyranny such as this and that we should use it.

So, I really want to know, does anybody agree with this? Do people have the right to kill and incite revolution against what they see as 'tyranny'? I personally disagree but how do you all feel?

[scarneck]

Yeah i expected that. But this lady actually is saying these things and she is running for goverment! You hear people cheering at the end too. I'm just wondering if anyone actually agrees with ideas this extreme.

[TheReno]

Funny thing is, its illegal to incite acts such as she proclaims are needed. But thats why our founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms. Incase such a time came about that a revolution was needed to preserve the freedoms we enjoy, they made sure we had the weapons to pull it off.

[Dawnslayer]

Link: Catherine Crabill's campaign site

I tried to find specifics on how the "Democratic administration" was leading America down the path to tyranny, but all I could find were unsubstantial claims of communist agendas and practices, with no clear details on how the administration is threatening our freedoms or by what means. No policies or executive orders were cited, no specific legislation was questioned aside from bailouts, and even the nomination of Sotomayor seemed to be absent.

If anyone else investigates and finds something of use to the further understanding of Ms. Crabill's platform, kindly post it in this thread for discussion.

[nehemiah135]

well they made that amendment for tyranny, hunting to but mainly because if someone breaks in your house then you have the weapons to shoot them.

[scarneck]

I read her website and its very interesting. She says "Fox and The Washington Post edited my remarks leaving the impression that I am looking for a fight. Nothing could be further from the truth". So she is blaming fox news for making her look bad, its possible. Nevertheless she made these comments and I find it hard to believe that any sort of context could make them look better.

However she then seems to make a complete U turn and defend her statement. Saying that "If we did degrade into chaos over this dangerous infringement on our sovereign rights there would be NO winners. THIS IS NOT THE ROAD WE WANT TO TAKE". However, in the next sentence, she says "We the People not only have the right, but further, it is called OUR DUTY to throw off such government that has betrayed its oath of office and the safety and FREEDOM of its people".

Quite frankly, im confused. She seems to be sending some mixed messages here saying that it is both wrong and our duty. Is she implying that it is undesirable but necessary?

[altanese-mistress]

On the one hand, she is right about the Second Ammendment. It is not there so people can hunt or collect weapons; it is there for the people to take up arms against oppression.

On the other hand, she's also a crazy bitch who jumped to the extreme too soon.