How the Alt Right interprets the Second Amendment in a treasonous way

How the second amendment is misinterpreted by the alt right in such a way it is sedition and treason
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America.
Short and to the point when you look at it, correct? It is short but the point is not direct. Why? Because what did the founding Fathers mean by  “free state”?  Hmm, did they mean that the citizenry should possess arms to protect themselves and the country from outside threats or inside threats? Both is the correct answer, but it is not the same thing as many gun owners would lead you to believe. Every citizen has the right to be safe in person and as such have the right to defend themselves from someone wanting to do them or their family harm. And the country did not have a large standing army back in the beginning so the militia was used to provide for the initial protection from invasion. Now, we have people saying the second amendment gives them the right to take up arms against the government if they feel that government is doing something wrong. Well, they are wrong. The right to vote, to elect our officials is how we get rid of a government doing us wrong. The first amendment is how we tell a government they are doing something wrong. The second amendment is for self defense and protecting the country and its elected government, not for overthrowing it.
The constitution discusses part of the second amendment, the militia. Yes, it does. Let's look at that.
Part of Article One Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States which deals with the powers of Congress. Regarding militias
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So even before the Second Amendment we have discussion of the Militia and what its intended purpose is in the Constitution itself. To “Execute the Laws of the Union” so for someone to disagree with a law passed by congress and signed into law by president, to take up arms is clearly not “Executing the Laws of the Union.
What about suppression of insurrection? Protesting government policy is not insurrection; taking up arms because you don't like a policy is insurrection. So for those saying they have the right to form a militia and overthrow elected officials because you don't like them is against the constitution, pure and simple.
So we are left with to repel invasions. If America is being invaded by a foreign entity, feel free to pick up gun and defend the Country.
No with regard to militias themselves. It seems the authority to regulate militias is clearly delineated in the Constitution to Congress. In other words you can not form a group of your own and called it a militia unless you abide by the law which says that Congress is the one to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. From what I see to just make up your own group, call it a militia, and do things your own way is not in keeping with the constitution.

Now let us look at Article II Section two of the Constitution.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Here it specifically says the President is the Commander and Chief of the Armed and Militias when they are called up to federal service. Now if you form a militia to remove a president you are going against this article because all the President would need to say is that all militias are under federal authority. Now if you are fighting to remove the President you are disobeying your commander. Not good. Also not that this Section mentions impeachment, While it does not go the process I am pointing it out so you note the process for removing a bad government is located in our constitution and not a gun.

Since the ratification of the constitution many things have changed, including what America considers the milia. By law the National Guard of each state is considered the militia. And it is so because it was designated that by Congress which fulfills Article I Section 8 regarding militias.
So no, the Second Amendment does not grant people the right to take up arms against the government if you don't like it. This is not to say the Second Amendment is negated and there is no need for it. No, every American has the right to defend themselves and their family. And, if things go bad and America ends up being invaded by a foreign power, you can defend your country and fellow Americans from invaders.

Open letter to GOP Trump has lost credibility and needs to be impeached

I am addressing this to the Republicans in the House and senate, and I do so respectfully.
In the opinion of the majority of Americans Donald Trump has damaged his credibility to the point he cannot be an effective leader. His constant Twitter rants and lies can no longer be ignored or written off as just a byproduct of his personality. The Office of President of the United States was created by our founding fathers to have the power of leading a government "for the people, by the people" in an orderly reliable manner. A key to this is maintaining trust, not just that of the Congress but of the American people. Except for a small group, and part of that group being made up of racists,  we the people have no trust in Donald Trump as President of the United States.
Setting aside the possibility, which is increasing daily, that he colluded with a hostile entity, Russia, to gain the Office of President, there are other reasons to say he has lost credibility to lead.
Donald Trump has attacked a core principle of America specifically set out by the constitution, free speech and Freedom of the press. He has maligned every news outlet that runs anything he may see as criticism. Real News has been dismissed as fake. People speaking on issues with an opinion different from those of Donald Trump have been personally attacked by him using twitter. This is not how a president should act, this is how a dictator acts.
With the firing of James Comey as the director of the FBI and the subsequent threats made to Mr. Comey, Donald Trump has turned the Office of President into that of a thug dictator. The subsequent shift in reasons for firing has shown that not just he, but those in his administration, will lie in such away it muddies the waters to the point it is hard to determine where the truth lies.
The contempt he has shown are close allies and his praise of dictators hostile to democracy brings into question what Donald Trump's vision for America truly is. A president who lies repeatedly, embraces autocratic rule, and threatens his political opponents with arrest and former government officials with the same, is contrary to what the founding fathers intended when they created the Office of President. What is further troubling are comments made that the Constitution doesn't work properly and may need to be changed regarding freedom of the press, speech and the workings of congress. Added with Donald Trump's comments of dissolving the ninth circuit court, it is apparent he has nothing but contempt for the oath he gave when taking office. He does not intend to preserve, protect, nor defend the Constitution, in fact he has begun an attack on it.
Donald Trump's has no credibility left with the majority of Americans, congress, and world leaders. This makes it impossible for him to govern and to represent American interests on the World Stage.
Donald Trump used the slogan "Make America Great Again" he is doing the exact opposite. America is more than just her people, it is the constitution that guarantees freedom for her people and without it there will be no America. How can you make something great again if it ceases to exist? You cannot, and Donald Trump's attack on our constitution and his loss of credibility threaten the existence of what he claims to want to make Great again. I ask you for the sake of the Republic, her people, and for democracy to use the Constitution, the very instrument he intends on destroying, to Remove Donald Trump from office and save our country.
Sincerely,
Charles Parmele
God Bless America

Trump is violating or planning to violate his oath of office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 
The above sounds familiar, right? It should because all Presidents up to and including Donald Trump have been required to take the oath on assuming athe Office of President of the United States of America. Trump did, didn't he? I don't know because that was the day I tried to induce a four year coma. It did not work. Anyway, you will not that these words say that the President will to the best of his ability, preserve the constitution, protect the constitution, and defend the constitution. The founding fathers meant the whole of the Constitution and not just pick and choose the ones you like. Now the Constitution is not perfect so they allowed for the amending of the constitution when required which we have done over the years. One of those Amendments was not thought out to well and was repealed by a later one. (The 19th repealed by the twenty first) But let us focus on the constitution and the first ten amendments commonly called "The Bill of Rights." 
When it comes down to determining if a law or court decision is in keeping with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights is normally what is used as the determining factor unless outlined in the Constitution itself. For over 200 hundred years it hasn't failed this country, in fact it help right wrongs done to many by the government. Now the document that we value most is under attack by a man sworn to protect it. A man who wants to change the way congress, the judiciary, and the executive branch operate because he cannot work within the Constitution because of his ignorance and personal beliefs. 
Our system was designed by our founding fathers with a set of checks and balances to ensure the government does not turn into some tyrannical state dominated by one branch. (Sorry second amendment people, the intent of the second amendment was to prevent invasion. The rest of the constitution and amendments are there to prevent a tyrannical dictator from taking over.) Now after 44 other presidents who have taken the oath we have one who wants to weaken both the legislative and judiciary while strengthen the executive branch. How is this in keeping in with the presidential oath of office? No, he is definitely not trying to preserve the constitution, he wants to gut it. His administration openly attacks the the first amendment, every aspect of it. He definitely is not defending the constitution. Now ask yourself with the evidence we have seen so far, is Trump violating his oath of office?