In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Now i'll say this your skating on thin ice with alot of people, and it goes without saying i'm within my rights, but the use of deadly force to protect and serve? Let's say porn's the potential killer, and defending your right to view it is the question??? It goes without saying to prevent an assault is one solution, but to take verbale abuse to acusations of molestation, and rape... all for nothing!
After, twenty year of lackluster success i've manage to put together a radio set that get's my head out a tribute to life as you know it, and wouldn't hurt you to learn a few new tricks ether.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Now i'll say this your skating on thin ice with alot of people, and it goes without saying i'm within my rights, but the use of deadly force to protect and serve? Let's say porn's the potential killer, and defending your right to view it is the question??? It goes without saying to prevent an assault is one solution, but to take verbale abuse to acusations of molestation, and rape... all for nothing!
After, twenty year of lackluster success i've manage to put together a radio set that get's my head out a tribute to life as you know it, and wouldn't hurt you to learn a few new tricks ether.
Somebody pretty please translate ?
I thought it was just me and the Scotch I have consumed.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Now i'll say this your skating on thin ice with alot of people, and it goes without saying i'm within my rights, but the use of deadly force to protect and serve? Let's say porn's the potential killer, and defending your right to view it is the question??? It goes without saying to prevent an assault is one solution, but to take verbale abuse to acusations of molestation, and rape... all for nothing!
After, twenty year of lackluster success i've manage to put together a radio set that get's my head out a tribute to life as you know it, and wouldn't hurt you to learn a few new tricks ether.
Somebody pretty please translate ?
See what I am saying about importance of proper use of a language and an ability to communicate coherently? [:D]
If you are saying that some dictator just decided to take away all our guns, I guess I would agree with most of you. What if a Constitutional Amendment was passed by the Congress of the United States and was ratified by the required number of states limiting all guns to less than 51 caliber and to hold less than 21 rounds? Would the people that enforced that law be traitors? I am far from sure on that one.
quote:What if a Constitutional Amendment was passed by the Congress of the United States and was ratified by the required number of states limiting all guns to less than 51 caliber and to hold less than 21 rounds?
That would be the lawful method..and if, after a long, bitter battle, the cowards and sycophants passed it...we would have to live with it.
A more likely scenario would be the same procedure..but a total ban. NOW would come the soul-searching for a lot of people.....
quote:Originally posted by tfitz54
If you are saying that some dictator just decided to take away all our guns, I guess I would agree with most of you. What if a Constitutional Amendment was passed by the Congress of the United States and was ratified by the required number of states limiting all guns to less than 51 caliber and to hold less than 21 rounds? Would the people that enforced that law be traitors? I am far from sure on that one.
It's not the subject of OP, but a nice try though.
I never said that it would be treason. I said that they should be dead.
However, regarding treason, it seems like disarming the people would aid our enemies quite a bit. If our people are unarmed, we wouldn't last very long in a fight, would we?
I would think one can be a traitor without committing treason. So yes, an attempt to disarm the American populace, regardless of the law, is the act of a traitor to the cause of our founding.
Treason has its own definition that does not apply absent an identified enemy of the State.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by bpost
Key board commandos, Balderdash and bravado.
Is it the best you could come up with? Feeling a little helpless, aren't we.
Not at all, just sick of hearing people using words too big for them to comprehend. Dealing with emotional issues with hatred rather than using powers granted to them by God above, the most important being reasoning. Treason is one hell of serious a charge, you better understand what it means before asking if someone is guilty of it.
TREASON:
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Disarming you might be un-constitutional as hell but it falls far short of levying war or giving aid to the enemies of the USA. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, not granted by man, nor removable by man, it is an individual right codified in the constitution.
Hope that helps! [:)]
I do see your point. However, there are some factors that need to be considered, which are not really even known. Meaning that helpless feeling is for a reason, folks just can't nail it down.
The is not as simple as we thought is was. This has always been so. Those who wrote the Constitution suffered from the same thing and all of the assumptions that go with it.
I posted on treason in the thread about the U.N. treaty, and it is relevant.
I comes down to our ability to recognize a conspiracy that goes back over 150 years that is working to destroy the Constitution, to eliminate it.
Knowing this forum and people, generally, fairly well, that ability is not yet present, I won't go there.
What we do see is that people have a sense the Constitution is under attack. No longer by an obvious enemy, but by an enemy within that removes it bit-by-bit. They are angry and they should be.
They recognize little acts that damage the Constitution, removing rights and freedoms and rightfully consider those acts treason. Recall, I've said there is an invisible effort They realize HOW frogs are boiled and are talking about the rising temperature.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Regarding the OP.
I would think one can be a traitor without committing treason. So yes, an attempt to disarm the American populace, regardless of the law, is the act of a traitor to the cause of our founding.
Treason has its own definition that does not apply absent an identified enemy of the State.
Don makes a good point. Where the meaning of the word is defined by the state. Logically I don't believe the state can be allowed that power because the hidden conspiracy I mention can be conducted within that power, acts the undeclared enemy would approve of can be concealed or diminished. Cumlatively these acts, by those undeclared in the beginning of what must be treason in the end, can, in the end, be responsible for the demise of the Constitution.
It is the treason project/club. Should we ignore the acts and their purpose at the cost of our Constitution just because those that wrote did not or could not write into it the greatest threat to it over time?
An Article V convention is needed, but media is controlled by the same traitorous entities, so we "can't get there from here".
quote:Originally posted by JustC
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by bpost
Key board commandos, Balderdash and bravado.
Is it the best you could come up with? Feeling a little helpless, aren't we.
Not at all, just sick of hearing people using words too big for them to comprehend. Dealing with emotional issues with hatred rather than using powers granted to them by God above, the most important being reasoning. Treason is one hell of serious a charge, you better understand what it means before asking if someone is guilty of it.
TREASON:
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Disarming you might be un-constitutional as hell but it falls far short of levying war or giving aid to the enemies of the USA. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, not granted by man, nor removable by man, it is an individual right codified in the constitution.
Hope that helps! [:)]
Bruce, wouldn't disarming the citizens, as related to the spirit of the 2nd ammendment, be the start of levying war on those citizens??? After all, once they are disarmed, they can be forced to do anything the armed wish them to. That is an interpretatory area, but one that needs looking at.
I say anyone in govt or law enforcement who gives that order, or follows that order, is guilty of treason as the 2nd ammendment lays out the RIGHTS of the american citizen. If they feel the need to disarm the citizens, then WHY exactly do they feel that need[?] If they are working FOR THE PEOPLE, they have nothing to fear. Now, if their inept policies in punishing criminals allow those same people to get out in no time at all, and re-aquire firearms to commit more crimes, then that responsibility lies squarely on THEIR shoulders, not ours. MHO
This is very interesting, as I followed the same line of logic as you do JC.. I didnt see Bpost speak to this post, so I will give it a bump in hopes he will explain his counter logic...
Not sure that treason is that cleanly defined. Concealing it or felonies that enable it also qualifies.
MISPRISION OF FELONY: U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4:
`Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some Judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both'.
Section 4 states "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States" such language is clear in that a citizen is allowed and required under law to disclose if such disclosure is "cognizable by a court of the United States"
TITLE 18, PART I , CHAPTER 115, ?2382 U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2382. Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by tfitz54
If you are saying that some dictator just decided to take away all our guns, I guess I would agree with most of you. What if a Constitutional Amendment was passed by the Congress of the United States and was ratified by the required number of states limiting all guns to less than 51 caliber and to hold less than 21 rounds? Would the people that enforced that law be traitors? I am far from sure on that one.
It's not the subject of OP, but a nice try though.
I would comply with the law, and so would almost everyone else. All of my guns except my shotgun only hold 1 round, and it only holds 9. So I am still in compliance. Now magazines are a different story, but a magazine is not a gun.
Comments
After, twenty year of lackluster success i've manage to put together a radio set that get's my head out a tribute to life as you know it, and wouldn't hurt you to learn a few new tricks ether.
Somebody pretty please translate ?
quote:Now i'll say this your skating on thin ice with alot of people, and it goes without saying i'm within my rights, but the use of deadly force to protect and serve? Let's say porn's the potential killer, and defending your right to view it is the question??? It goes without saying to prevent an assault is one solution, but to take verbale abuse to acusations of molestation, and rape... all for nothing!
After, twenty year of lackluster success i've manage to put together a radio set that get's my head out a tribute to life as you know it, and wouldn't hurt you to learn a few new tricks ether.
Somebody pretty please translate ?
I thought it was just me and the Scotch I have consumed.
Guess not.
quote:Now i'll say this your skating on thin ice with alot of people, and it goes without saying i'm within my rights, but the use of deadly force to protect and serve? Let's say porn's the potential killer, and defending your right to view it is the question??? It goes without saying to prevent an assault is one solution, but to take verbale abuse to acusations of molestation, and rape... all for nothing!
After, twenty year of lackluster success i've manage to put together a radio set that get's my head out a tribute to life as you know it, and wouldn't hurt you to learn a few new tricks ether.
Somebody pretty please translate ?
See what I am saying about importance of proper use of a language and an ability to communicate coherently? [:D]
That would be the lawful method..and if, after a long, bitter battle, the cowards and sycophants passed it...we would have to live with it.
A more likely scenario would be the same procedure..but a total ban. NOW would come the soul-searching for a lot of people.....
If you are saying that some dictator just decided to take away all our guns, I guess I would agree with most of you. What if a Constitutional Amendment was passed by the Congress of the United States and was ratified by the required number of states limiting all guns to less than 51 caliber and to hold less than 21 rounds? Would the people that enforced that law be traitors? I am far from sure on that one.
It's not the subject of OP, but a nice try though.
However, regarding treason, it seems like disarming the people would aid our enemies quite a bit. If our people are unarmed, we wouldn't last very long in a fight, would we?
I would think one can be a traitor without committing treason. So yes, an attempt to disarm the American populace, regardless of the law, is the act of a traitor to the cause of our founding.
Treason has its own definition that does not apply absent an identified enemy of the State.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by bpost
Key board commandos, Balderdash and bravado.
Is it the best you could come up with? Feeling a little helpless, aren't we.
Not at all, just sick of hearing people using words too big for them to comprehend. Dealing with emotional issues with hatred rather than using powers granted to them by God above, the most important being reasoning. Treason is one hell of serious a charge, you better understand what it means before asking if someone is guilty of it.
TREASON:
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Disarming you might be un-constitutional as hell but it falls far short of levying war or giving aid to the enemies of the USA. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, not granted by man, nor removable by man, it is an individual right codified in the constitution.
Hope that helps! [:)]
I do see your point. However, there are some factors that need to be considered, which are not really even known. Meaning that helpless feeling is for a reason, folks just can't nail it down.
The is not as simple as we thought is was. This has always been so. Those who wrote the Constitution suffered from the same thing and all of the assumptions that go with it.
I posted on treason in the thread about the U.N. treaty, and it is relevant.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=462933
I comes down to our ability to recognize a conspiracy that goes back over 150 years that is working to destroy the Constitution, to eliminate it.
Knowing this forum and people, generally, fairly well, that ability is not yet present, I won't go there.
What we do see is that people have a sense the Constitution is under attack. No longer by an obvious enemy, but by an enemy within that removes it bit-by-bit. They are angry and they should be.
They recognize little acts that damage the Constitution, removing rights and freedoms and rightfully consider those acts treason. Recall, I've said there is an invisible effort They realize HOW frogs are boiled and are talking about the rising temperature.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Regarding the OP.
I would think one can be a traitor without committing treason. So yes, an attempt to disarm the American populace, regardless of the law, is the act of a traitor to the cause of our founding.
Treason has its own definition that does not apply absent an identified enemy of the State.
Don makes a good point. Where the meaning of the word is defined by the state. Logically I don't believe the state can be allowed that power because the hidden conspiracy I mention can be conducted within that power, acts the undeclared enemy would approve of can be concealed or diminished. Cumlatively these acts, by those undeclared in the beginning of what must be treason in the end, can, in the end, be responsible for the demise of the Constitution.
It is the treason project/club. Should we ignore the acts and their purpose at the cost of our Constitution just because those that wrote did not or could not write into it the greatest threat to it over time?
An Article V convention is needed, but media is controlled by the same traitorous entities, so we "can't get there from here".
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by bpost
Key board commandos, Balderdash and bravado.
Is it the best you could come up with? Feeling a little helpless, aren't we.
Not at all, just sick of hearing people using words too big for them to comprehend. Dealing with emotional issues with hatred rather than using powers granted to them by God above, the most important being reasoning. Treason is one hell of serious a charge, you better understand what it means before asking if someone is guilty of it.
TREASON:
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Disarming you might be un-constitutional as hell but it falls far short of levying war or giving aid to the enemies of the USA. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, not granted by man, nor removable by man, it is an individual right codified in the constitution.
Hope that helps! [:)]
Bruce, wouldn't disarming the citizens, as related to the spirit of the 2nd ammendment, be the start of levying war on those citizens??? After all, once they are disarmed, they can be forced to do anything the armed wish them to. That is an interpretatory area, but one that needs looking at.
I say anyone in govt or law enforcement who gives that order, or follows that order, is guilty of treason as the 2nd ammendment lays out the RIGHTS of the american citizen. If they feel the need to disarm the citizens, then WHY exactly do they feel that need[?] If they are working FOR THE PEOPLE, they have nothing to fear. Now, if their inept policies in punishing criminals allow those same people to get out in no time at all, and re-aquire firearms to commit more crimes, then that responsibility lies squarely on THEIR shoulders, not ours. MHO
This is very interesting, as I followed the same line of logic as you do JC.. I didnt see Bpost speak to this post, so I will give it a bump in hopes he will explain his counter logic...
MISPRISION OF FELONY: U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4:
`Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some Judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both'.
Section 4 states "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States" such language is clear in that a citizen is allowed and required under law to disclose if such disclosure is "cognizable by a court of the United States"
TITLE 18, PART I , CHAPTER 115, ?2382 U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2382. Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
quote:Originally posted by tfitz54
If you are saying that some dictator just decided to take away all our guns, I guess I would agree with most of you. What if a Constitutional Amendment was passed by the Congress of the United States and was ratified by the required number of states limiting all guns to less than 51 caliber and to hold less than 21 rounds? Would the people that enforced that law be traitors? I am far from sure on that one.
It's not the subject of OP, but a nice try though.
I would comply with the law, and so would almost everyone else. All of my guns except my shotgun only hold 1 round, and it only holds 9. So I am still in compliance. Now magazines are a different story, but a magazine is not a gun.