The nature of our rights and of rebellions
Let us examine your believes and see.
The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation.
Although there is a case to be made for a Constitutional right I base the right to cast off a form of government that has become injurious to our rights firmly on my rights as a human.
There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally.
Of course there is. This nation was founded upon a declaration of independence. Up until the rebellion against England succeeded the colonists were British subjects. They made their arguments against their King based upon natural law. It was their rights as human beings that formed the basis of a just rebellion.
The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy,
To whom did the British subjects in the colonies owe their fealty if not the British King? The colonists were British subjects. Are you confused on this point?
and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence.
Yes. They had a list of grievances against their King. They rebelled against their government. It was only through winning by the force of arms that we became a nation separate from Great Britain.
The notion that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to bear arms against the government is utter nonsense. There is no such right; and to advocate such action is nothing less than sedition, to act upon it treason.
It was exactly the same for the openly rebellious colonists. When they signed the Declaration of Independence they were openly announcing their treason against their King and country.
Look at these magnificent, explanatory words, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. "
One does not give an explanation on why the political bands must be dissolved unless one believes that one is subject to another. The British colonists would rebel against their government because the Laws of Nature required it. Their rights, and ours, flow from their (and our) existence.
Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws, and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their citizens.
The state, however wrong it is, will defend itself. Great Britain did not simply wave a fond farewell to the rebels. They fought. They fought for years. So too the small rebellions of Americans against the American government, usually by a very tiny percentage of the people in one place have all been ineffective.
One does not rebel until the time is ripe. Every argument must be exhausted. Every possibility at reconciliation must be tried, first, because rebellion is always a tragedy. And second, until the people are convinced there is no point. A rebellion that is not supported by a sizable minority of the people will fail. From my studies over the years of rebellions and insurrections the dividing line between certain failure and a possibility of success comes when between 3-5% actively support a rebellion with another 15-25% passively supporting it. Once numbers rise above those thresholds the rebellion may very likely succeed.
Misguided people like you would do well to learn from history lest you suffer the consequences of repeating it.
It seems I have a better grasp of history than you do. I shall remain firmly with my opinion.