This tenet has already been satisfied.
We are waging wars with no decleration of war and have since WWII.
Just for starters.

Suspending the constitution.
Declaring marshall law.
Violating the constitution in an egregious and universally recognized manner (in other words, no, collecting income taxes doesn’t count)
Dismissing Congress and taking unitary executive power
Organizing a military coup

None of which is even remotely suggested by any of President Obama’s actions.

It seems that no matter what the government does that is unconstitutional, the left insists that fighting against it is somehow wrongheaded. (Let’s not get in a Bush did this, Bush did that argument, as I believe both parties are just as guilty.)
My suspicion is that the average lefty feels that rebellion is NEVER justified, no matter what. That is the tone they set.

So I would like to know for the record, what does our, or any other government for that matter, have to do before rebellion is justified?

Election? Are you insinuating that if the people involved are elected there is no recourse no matter what they do? That mob rule is ok?

We all must remember folks like Hitler that were popular and elected. Does that mean their actions are ok because they were elected?

There must be a point where a criminal government or mob rule cross the line and rebellion is justified.
What is that point? Or, in the eyes of the left, is it never justified?

Because we don’t have gun shops on every street corner selling assault rifles to kids and gang members. When they are not so readily available, they aren’t as easy to acquire by those who do want to do harm – regardless of if they obey law or not. It’s called common sense.

“I would like a liberal to answer, once and for all, what exactly does a government have to do before rebellion is justified?”

We wouldn’t know up here, as we live in a free country that respects the privacy and rights of it’s people and generally leaves us alone. Since your apparently at odds with how an overwhelming vote turned out, care to enlighten us?

Do you mean an “election is justified” or what you said? Go ahead and answer.

I’m not disputing anything, since you haven’t bothered to post anything that supports your statement.

Do you dispute the HRC conviction rate prior to the Levant & Steyn cases?

Which you can prove I suppose?

‘What England started around 1250 or so with the Magna Carta we completed. Our freedom was seized 250 years ago, after which we were no longer subjects.’

And with the help of people like you supporting his every move, Bush was able to piss all over your freedom in a matter of a few scant years.

America, fuck yeah.

So am I to understand you stand four square behind your HRC? Not too much of a price to pay, trading freedom of speech for a little PC.

I see you’ve been reading Stormfront Canada?

abanterer: “Be interested in discovering AO’s theory on why America has such a high crime rate versus other nations.”

Myself: “I’d wager it’s not law abiding citizens having access to arms.”

abanterer: “I take it to mean that ‘not letting law abiding citizens have access to firearms’ is your answer, because… that’s probably not a sentence otherwise”

I don’t see where the confusion might come from about my answer. Your perception is 180 out from my intended message. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Canada’s homicide rate is roughly 50% of ours. Why do you think that might be?

But, all right. If your theory is sound, then why are rates lower in some countries with lower percentage access to firearms?

Boy that sure sounds like freedom to me… now whats all this now about having rights you were saying?