The Twitter homepage for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence describes the CSGV’s mission as “Seeking laws to prevent deranged killers from arming LEGALLY. Dedicated to peace & nonviolence. Public safety=NO vigilantism.” So I guess it’s OK for deranged killers to arm ILLEGALLY. What about the killers who aren’t deranged? Do they arm legally or illegally? Oh wait! I know! Illegally. Do I get a prize or something? Nope, just the same freedom of speech shared by this dope. Which is OK. I’m not bothered by the fact that the CSGV is free to mislead, misdirect and offer aid and comfort to statists. You didn’t miss that bit did you?
“Public safety=NO vigilantism” is gun control speak for “Public safety=only the state has guns.” In other words, no guns for you boyo. You want to use a firearm to defend your life or the lives of your loved ones from an imminent, credible, lethal threat? Not to coin a phrase, dial 911 and die.
Actually, it’s worse than that. According to the CSGV Tweet, the majority of Americans fighting to defend and extend their right to keep and bear arms are insurrectionists. You know; agitators preparing for a violent uprising against the United States government. Traitors.
Not true. Gun rights advocates beliefs are rooted in the law of the land as set forth in this country’s founding document. The same United States Constitution that federal officials swear to uphold. In that sense, gun rights advocates are patriots fighting for a U.S. government designed by the people for the people. Not against it.
That said . . .
IF the federal government violated the terms of the United States Constitution to the point where gun owners in general and gun rights advocates in specific believed that the government had undermined its legitimacy, AND the gun owners could not redress the transgression legally, THEN they would DEFEND the rights usurped by the government by force of arms.
Maybe. But any suggestion that American gun rights advocacy is dominated by citizens actively preparing to go to war with Uncle Sam is paranoid delusion. Dangerous paranoid delusion.
I’ve never heard a gun rights advocate imply that the government should take action against gun control advocates. Gun rights guys and gals cherish the First Amendment as much as the Second. Say what you want about guns. Just leave my gun rights alone.
In contrast, the CSGV’s Tweet accuses its opponents of conspiring to commit treason. In other words, the CSGV considers gun control advocates domestic terrorists. I’m not buying that this character assassination is “just” rhetoric; the CSGV’s Tweet implies a desire for dark deeds for [what they perceive to be] the public good.
A strict interpretation of the above Tweet suggests that the CSGV only has a hard-on for those who “dominate” gun control advocacy. But history is our guide. Repression spreads like a cancer. If the CSGV had their way all gun owners would be considered part of the “pro-gun movement.” And face the consequences.
Who’s paranoid, me or them? Doesn’t matter. Gun rights advocates better make sure people like the ones behind this Tweet never again rise to the level of influence they achieved during gun control’s heyday. Hey, I’m in. (I’ve quit smoking cigars and I’ve been smoked out.) TTAG is on the job.
Meanwhile, you have been warned—by the gun grabbers themselves. Not to put too fine a point on it, the fight to defend our Second Amendment rights is a matter of life and death. For all of us.
That “tweet” borders on inciting violence and making threats. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Insurrectionists?!?!?! Have these people ever read the constitution?
Or history? Seems to me there were a bunch of folks who didn’t want to pay their taxes or disarm back in the late 1700’s. I think we fought a war over the matter, if memory serves…
They have obviously read Saul Alynsky ‘Accusse your opponent of your crimes, first’
Yes, these monsters are CREEPY. Weird commie concepts…..and very clever.
I would say they have read it and are locked into the idea that the time it was written it only protected muskets and is now outdated. What you cant seem to get these anti loons to accept is the constitution protects a principle, an idea of freedom for everyone not technology. They dont get that the constitution is timeless and history contains lessons.
This also contains lawmakers, congress, up to and including the presidents we have had and have now. So much has been stripped from the constitution and ourselves its pathetic. The tipping point will come one day but just depends on how much more loss of freedom the masses are willing to accept.
The tweet said “dominate” the pro-gun movement, nothing about the majority Robert is playing loose and easy with the truth again on The Truth About Guns.
About the legally and illegally getting of guns, this is a bit of a spin too. Whenever our side proposes laws, you say “the criminals won’t obey.” We explain that’s why we intend our laws to impact the law abiding. Now, when we say the dangerous people wouldn’t be able to get guns legally, you say, “ah, but what about their getting them illegally?”
Circular bullshit, which when dished out by Robert, you guys just eat it up.
But you taught us all that circular BS to begin with on the pathological lie that gun control reduces violence (never does) or that laws only affect felons (most gun control laws do not spply to felons to begin with, Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968).
So many more examples to rehash, but that would be cruel to mikeyb repeating all those circular BS statements and claims the antis have spewed over the years.
You’re splitting hairs on the “dominate” bit, for no good reason (other than frustration and obfuscation).
There’s nothing circular about saying that criminals don’t obey laws. And there’s nothing reassuring about you wanting gun laws to impact the law abiding. Why? What have they done?
What lawful gun owners have done is demonstrated again and again that a small percentage of them is really unfit. That’s because the qualifying standards are too loose. This could be corrected with little inconvenience to those of you who really are responsible.
Slippery slope Mike. And you know it.
I have always thought the “slippery slope” argument was an odd argument. It is like saying: “If we let the government license automobiles, the next thing you know, they will confiscate them.”
Really?
The slippery slope is a weak argument, and you know that, Robert.
Actually no it isn’t and no I don’t. The Holocaust is my guide.
Poor Mikeb, been out of country so long he doesnt understand the meaning of the word NO!
Instead he spins, and spins, and spins, and spins, and spins, and spins (must be in real good physical shape) and spins, and spins, and spins, and spins, and spins…to infinity, all based on the pathological lie gun control reduces violence.
How to Spot a Pathological Liar
By Evan Fulford, eHow Contributor
Pathological lying can be a symptom of more serious mental illness.
Pathological lying, also known as pseudologia fantastica, is a pattern of lying that is both habitual and done despite negative consequences. While pathological lying is not a recognized disorder in the DSM, the diagnostic manual used by the American Psychiatric Association, it is considered by some psychiatrists to be a pattern of behavior that is indicative of a more serious mental illness. A pathological liar cannot be identified by his appearance per se, but his behavior can be analyzed for symptoms of the condition
Analyze a day-to-day conversation you have with the individual you suspect of being a pathological liar. Does the conversation contain grandiose claims about the person’s life that seem unbelievable? Pathological liars tend to come up with their lies compulsively and are often unable to back up their lies when questioned further for details. Try questioning her about the details of her life, and notice whether she seems to become uncomfortable with your inquiries. If so, you can suspect that she may be lying.
Think back on past interactions you have had with the individual you suspect of being a pathological liar. If you can recall instances where the individual has been caught lying, but was unwilling to admit any wrongdoing, he is displaying symptoms of pathological lying.
Determine whether the person has been diagnosed with a mental health disorder that has pathological lying as one of its common symptoms. These include: histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial or borderline personality disorder, factitious disorder, confabulation, malingering, delusions, or Ganser’s syndrome. If she has been diagnosed with any of these disorders, her pattern of lying may be symptomatic of a more serious mental illness.
Read more: How to Spot a Pathological Liar (your version of MikeB)| eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_8294371_spot-pathological-liar.html#ixzz1wbjbO9Jq
Read more: How to Spot a Pathological Liar | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_8294371_spot-pathological-liar.html#ixzz1wbj1S2ix
I’m just a guy who has a different opinion than you do. FLAME DELETED
Well LBD, then you would have to first understand the difference between an affirmed right, and a privilege. So do yourself a favor and never compare automobiles to the right to keep and bear arms again, even in jest as even mikeb doesnt do that anymore if I am correct.
Next, you will have to prove that registration affected the felons, it doesnt, Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968.
Next you would have to prove registration prevents or solves crimes, it doesnt.
Next you have to prove that confiscation is possible without registration, it isnt.
Next you would have to prove confiscation after registration has never happened, it has.
Since you or no-one can prove these answers incorrect (hint we dont care what you believe, only what you can prove), explain and prove again why they are then necessary in a logical manner? Hell freezing over comes to mind before you could prove such a thing.
Jarhead: It is always fun to tell other people what they have to prove to win an argument. Remember, though, that I disagree with the entire basis of your argument, not just the conclusions.
All you are saying is that you disagree with the basis for my argument as well. That doesn’t mean that every person who wants to close the gun show loophole is secretly trying to confiscate your guns.
To the contrary, I bet some of them are dealers.
Good to hear from you again, Mayor Bloomberg! I realize you have been pretty busy explaining how it is OK for your NYC cops to shoot 9 innocent bystanders, but we have missed your pearls of wisdom here.
Now I know your comparing cars to guns registration is just stupid anyways but think about it this way. If it weren’t for me registering my car then the state couldn’t threaten to come steal it if i don’t pay their “tax”. So I submit to you that we would have at the very least that same bullshit problem to deal with and at the most you send your cronies to try and come take them. Now why oh why would I wan’t anything to do with that?
if “gun control advocates” are “domestic terrorists” that let’s most of us off the hook. and a vigilante is someone who hunts down and targets criminals. carrying a gun to defend yourself from criminal attack is not the same thing.
isn’t “gun control advocate” someone who preaches gun control? is csvg for or against gun control?
They should be ashamed of their appalling spelling.
I have no hope that they will be ashamed of their opinions, but can’t we agree on good use of the English language?
Than call me a TRAITOR and come and try to get my gun. I bet is this guys family was being shot and rape, and there was a gun nearby he would be the first one going for the gun. If the gov. means to start a war, let it start here.
Is it just me or do “progressives” love to throw the T word around a lot.
Desperation.
Even with the media whipping up fear over the gun issue of late, there has been only theatrical responses from a few of their allies in government.
That they are going so far to invoke the “T” word tells me they see how badly they are losing. They’re throwing Hail Marys at this point.
If they are so “dedicated to peace and nonviolence,” then why are the calling for the force and guns of government to enact their views? If their positions had any merit, a free market would voluntarily adopt them.
WOW! So I’m an insurrectionist, huh? And here I thought I was just an old fat guy that liked to go shooting once in a while and voted for candidates that didn’t want to take that away from me. And a traitor too? Nope, I love my country, and all it stands for. I’ve spent time in other parts of the world that do not enjoy the freedoms we have, so I may have a deeper appreciation than many over how good our country is. I have no desire to impose my beliefs on anyone else, but I will not sit idly by while others try to violate my rights as a free citizen of this nation by imposing their beliefs on me, slander me, or make me a slave to their vision of totaltarian government.
This reminds me of a “conversation” I had once
Gun Control guy: “You know, if you want your guns and rights and sh*t you should go found your own country someplace.”
Me: “We did, it’s called the United States of America and if you don’t like it you are free to leave.”
I like this, and I plan on using it in the future, thank you!
I’m sure CSVG would have no qualms about getting the government to round up all gun owners and put them in detention camps. They’re trying to dehumanize gun owners so it’ll be easier to treat them like garbage.
According to the CSGV, if you want to own a firearm, regardless of your political affiliation, you are an insurrectionist!!!!
According to the CSGV, if you want to own a firearm, that in and of itself is a sign of mental health issues.
According to the CSGV, if you want to own a firearm, regardless of being a lefty/dem/lib/prog, you are a right wing extremist, because owning firearms, is what right wing extremists do.
The key phrase in this idiot’s tweet is calling pro-gun advocates “Traitors who are preparing for war with OUR gov’t.” That would be the government preferred by CSGV- a Hugo Chavez-type socialist dictatorship. Led, no doubt, by our President-for-life wannabe, BH Obama.
Little bit of inadvertent honesty there, CSGV?
Anyone who is preparing for war with the United States is in the wrong. It doesn’t matter who is President. We fought that war already, and decided that question.
Don’t misunderstand. Just because traitors are wrong does not make the government right. It just means that when traitors get killed, no one mourns their passing.
I don’t believe that masses of gun rights advocates are preparing to go to war with the U.S. government. Rather, I believe they are preparing to defend life, liberty, and property as well as basic common law and the principles written in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution — which of course includes the Bill of Rights.
“I’ve never heard a gun rights advocate imply that the government should take action against gun control advocates.”
I am starting to think that we should. I do not have a right to bear arms for the purpose of forcing someone to do my bidding. Similarly, a person does not have a right to free speech to force me to do their bidding. Saying it another way, I do not have a right to use my arms to take away their right to free speech. And they do not have a right to use free speech to take away my right to bear arms.
This is a question of motive. If you support gun rights because you think people should be able to defend themselves, then you are not a traitor.
If you support gun rights because you are one of Tom Head’s friends planning an armed uprising in case of an Obama victory, then yes, you are a traitor.
Speaking of the ‘domestic terrorist’ label, has anyone else read about the Iraq vets who’ve been adjudicated mentally incompetent and forcibly institutionalized, allegedly for nothing more unstable than anti-obama facebook posts? The progressives and the media have been working tirelessly to label anyone and everyone opposed to their regime or who may have the fortitude to resist the inevitable hostile takeover as domestic terrorists, dehumanizing them and setting them up as unstable anarchists in the mind of the mindless public. Sounds to me like obama has been making good on his promises to the Brady bunch to go outside regular channels to defeat gun ownership.
Honestly, no, I had not heard of that. Surely, though, many Veterans are returning home in need of various kinds of therapy, and I don’t think we should deny them the therapy just because they happen to be anti-Obama.
If someone makes a threat against the President, though, they need to be disarmed. That is pretty much true regardless of who is President at any given moment.
If someone came home from Iraq and wrote some threats against Bush or Cheney, I doubt that the Secret Service gave them a medal for it.
…I don’t think we should deny them the therapy just because they happen to be anti-Obama.
I think you missed the point, the veteran is receiving compulsory therapy.
Matt, do you have a link for that? I am not saying it didn’t happen, I am just saying there are two sides to every story.
Considering there are people in the U.S. House who wanted to impeach Obama just for refusing to fully fund a certain fighter jet, I am surprised that they just let this one go.
Mertis posted a link below.
Yup.
http://timesdispatch.com/ar/2144481/
“”Let it be that I am a Traitor. The word has no terrors for me…I have been born of traitors, but, thank God, they have been Traitors in the great cause of liberty, fighting against tyranny and oppression.”
—Robert Barnwell Rhett
Good quote. There are different forms of treason, though. Treason against an unelected king can be said to be a fight against oppression. Treason against a democratically-elected government is really just murder.
A few “People” in Lubbock might see themselves as a mighty new country rising from the ashes of democracy, but the National Guard won’t see them that way. The National Guard will see them as vermin to be exterminated.
The leaders of our states and country swear their oath to the Constitution and the principles of the nation in black and white, not to the majority of current voters’ wishes.
I would define treason as the ignoring or subverting of those clear Constitutional powers and principles.
Merits, People do not get to define the Constitution however they see fit. If “you” take up arms against a Democratically elected government, “you” are a traitor.
If you disagree with how they understand the Constitution, you may run against them, and you may even insult them in public, but once you take up arms, you lose any claim to being the good guy.
@LBD
How does a democratically elected government in any way make it legitimate? In recent history 40% – 50% of the population has abstained from presidential elections, another ~10% is disqualified. When you get in to the local level in areas such as Chicago, only ~25% participates. The majority of the people in this country would rather have no government than a democrat or republican ran government.
Matt,
The Constitution specifies the method for removing a President from office: You can impeach him or you can vote against him. The Constitution defines what is, and what is not, legitimate.
In this case, if it is Democratically elected, then it is legimimate, by definition.
lol wut? Did you read my post? The constitution has nothing to do with legitimacy. And if your post is accurate, can you please specify which articles in the constitution enumerate what is not legitimate?
Can you also rationalize how yelling fire in a theater is not protected by 1A, if the constitution is so authoritative?
Matt, Article 3 section 3. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, … ”
So yeah, I read your post. It is just that you are wrong. I mean that in the sense that “I disagree with your opinion,”, not in the sense that “you are a traitor.”
But if you think you can define the government as illigitimate, just because you disagree with their opinions, then I mean it in the sense that “just because you repeat your original argument, doesn’t make it any more correct.”
If what you meant to say was that you think it would be justified to take up arms against the government, then let me know, so I can insult your opinions a lot more personally.
How am I wrong that the majority of people in the country do not participate in elections? And that therefor the government lacks the consent of the governed? If you read the declaration of independence, it requires the consent of the governed:
…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…
And yes I do advocate taking up arms.
The Declaration was not incorporated into the Constitution. You might as well quote the writings of Thomas Payne.
What a cop out. I was expecting a lot more when you said “so I can insult your opinions a lot more personally.” How about you man up and admit that we have the right to engage in a armed revolt against the government.
Its too late to edit my post, but without the declaration of independence, the constitution would not exist. The constitution builds upon what is laid out in the declaration of independence.
Taking up arms against a democratically elected government shouldn’t ever be the first response, especially when all other avenues of change haven’t been exhausted. From where I sit, those avenues haven’t been exhausted yet or we wouldn’t be able to even have this conversation.
It wasnt the first choice. People have been voting for the lesser of two evils for generations now, and things have only been getting worse. As a result, more and more people have been abstaining from elections:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
The founding fathers were able to have their discussions of overthrowing the English government, does that mean that they did not exhaust all possible avenues to change as well? What makes our and their circumstances different? Do you really think Romney or Obama will fix things? If so then how? Or are you simply voting for the lesser of two evils? What realistic avenue of change still exists?
Matt,
How do you define change? I have yet to see any issue that was so big that a majority in Congress could not change it in a matter of a few months.
Maybe I am not seeing the abuses that you are seeing. Don’t like the Federal Reserve? Easy solution, replace them. This hardly requires a new Constitution.
How do you define change? I have yet to see any issue that was so big that a majority in Congress could not change it in a matter of a few months.
Well, the federal deficit is one example of a problem that has been going on since I was born. Was this miraculously fixed, and I just didnt notice?
Matt,
You are not going to fix the deficit by shooting up the place. Everyone is trying to spin the Federal deficit to make their own political points, but we actually know how to balance the federal budget. It is not nearly as hard as people make it sound. Bill Clinton did it. Ronald Reagan almost did it. If the rich people in the country had any interest in it, they would have already done it.
The only reason Romney and Obama don’t agree on balancing the budget is that they disagree over whose taxes to raise. Everything else is just nickles and dimes.
Every argument you have made has been shot down in messy flames. At this point, I think you are just trolling.
“I don’t vote, so we have taxation without representation.” [Hogwash, bunk, and poppycock.]
“The Declaration of Independence gives me the right to revolt against any government I consider unjust.” [Drivel, rot, and twaddle.]
“Obama has given himself the powers of a despot.” [Better than your last two arguments, but still rubbish.]
“My hatred of Obama is just like Thomas Jefferson’s hatred of King George.” [I have run out of words for absurd.]
Thomas Jefferson was a philosopher genius who rose to the rank of President because of his ability to work with other statesmen to craft some of the best known sentences in the English language.
You, by contrast, are sitting in your basement, in your underwear, in front of a spittle-covered computer screen, alternating between “Redstate” and “TTAG”, posting rage-filled lies and quoting juvenile half-wit pronouncements from Rush Limbaugh and the NRA.
The budget deficit? That is your new justification for wanting to overthrow the country? If perspective were fatal, you wouldn’t even be running a fever.
The sad thing to me is that you don’t even seem to realize how badly you lost the argument.
My son does not yet understand competition, and sometimes when we play “Sorry”, he plays to lose instead of to win. And even then, he comes closer to winning than you have in this argument.
Are you satisfied now that I have properly insulted your opinions? Because if not, I have a thesaurus around here somewhere, and I can look up a few more words.
“A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”
– Lysander Spooner
Actually, though, I think that would make you less of a slave.
If the day ever comes when there is an attempt at mass confiscation,it’s all going to hell anyway,so forget about taking on cops and soldiers with tanks,etc-just keep a mental register of locally accessible gun grabber advocates and get acquainted with them.Hold their hands.
Interesting that a bunch of a$$holes who have never done sh!t for their country and despise the nation’s Constitution can call anyone a traitor.
Those sons of bitches need to watch who they’re calling a traitor. I raised my right hand twice to serve this country and I’m willing to bet none of those people did.
You raised your hand to serve the politicians, not your country.
And what unit did you serve in Matt?
@matt:
Umm, no. I’m pretty sure I get to decide who or what I’m swearing to uphold and defend, not you.
actually matt, no. we swore an oath to the office and the constitution. as it was explained to me in boot camp, we did not salute the man, just the rank. and the ucmj clearly spelled out we were only obligated to follow lawfull orders. “following orders” is not a defense for criminal acts in any court i know of. as for the per cent of people taking part in the elections, if only 3% per cent of the people choose to take part it’s still a done deal. those of us that choose not to vote are giving the others the right to make the decisions.
…we did not salute the man, just the rank.
Exactly, the Commander and Chief, a politician. Or to follow declarations of war from the congress, a group of politicians; not your countrymen as a whole or even a significant part.
as for the per cent of people taking part in the elections, if only 3% per cent of the people choose to take part it’s still a done deal.
That is despostism. See my reply to LBD and quotes from the declaration of independence.
those of us that choose not to vote are giving the others the right to make the decisions.
Abstaining from elections is a vote of no confidence in the government, it is not delegating authority to the electorate.
Choosing not to vote is not the same as a vote of no confidence. That is like saying “wearing red is a vote of no confidence”. Um, no.
Voting is a responsibility. Do it, or don’t. But don’t rationalize your apathy.
and you would have a point if the vote of no confidence had meaning, it doesn’t. the government isn’t going to step aside or change their policies because of low voter turnout. as for the politicians they were put in office by my fellow country men, those who voted and those that didn’t.
“That is despostism. See my reply to LBD and quotes from the declaration of independence.”
——
Nope. That you refuse to exercise your rights is not in any way the fault of those who do. Take some responsibility for your (in)action.
“Abstaining from elections is a vote of no confidence in the government, it is not delegating authority to the electorate.”
——
Actually it is, de facto, “delegating authority to the electorate.” The opportunity to vote is afforded to you. That you choose not to take part is your decision and nobody else’s. See previous remark about personal responsibility.
@LBD
It is. Members of congress abstain from voting on a bill all the time, when either outcome would be “evil”.
@jwm
The government may not recognize it, but the people can use it to support their point that the government lacks the consent of the governed, and can then exercise their right (and duty) to over throw the government as enumerated in the declaration of independence.
The politicians were not put in to office because of those who didnt vote, only those who did.
@Moonshine7102
Abstaining from voting is a right. And a duty if there is no suitable candidate which you support.
It is not delegating authority to the electorate. Wikipedia defines authority as “a right conferred by recognized social position.” By not voting, you are not recognizing their position.
“…if there is no suitable candidate which you support.”
——
And therein lies the rub; there is absolutely NO candidate you can support? What would it take to earn your support? Advocacy of violent overthrow? If so, then you have marginalized yourself; nobody had to do it for you.
“By not voting, you are not recognizing their position.”
——
Close. By not voting, you are not recognizing ANY position. I know you’ll say you have a position. Unless you are vocal and vote, though, nobody will recognize it.
Abstaining from voting is a right, but it does not grant you any exemption from the laws passed, nor does it relieve you of the responsibility to abide by the result.
If it did, then anyone who failed to vote in the last election could simply ignore the speed limits. Anyone who felt like there were no good candidates for Mayor could refuse to pay their taxes.
That’s not democracy, that’s anarchy.
The power of America lies in the fact that we disagree with our leaders, yet still follow the rules. If you want to simply ignore any rule you loathe, then move to Somalia.
Here in America, we have police. If the police fail, then we have the National Guard. If that fails, we have the Army. If that fails, then I will drive out to Lubbock myself and kill the traitors with my bare hands. You may not think a middle-aged accountant with a bad back would be that formidable, but I can be a pretty fearsome bastard when I am feeling all righteous and angry.
…there is absolutely NO candidate you can support? What would it take to earn your support?… I know you’ll say you have a position. Unless you are vocal and vote, though, nobody will recognize it.
Anarchy, and the abolition of government. Can you tell me which candidate I should vote for then?
The words of the oath you “swore” and the reality of it are two different things. Just like how for decades we’ve had presidents get up, swear to uphold the Constitution, and then shit all over it for their own personal agenda.
It’s rather frightening that those in our military lack the critical thinking skills to realize that the people that they blindly serve are not some holy guardians of the Constitution, but corrupt old sociopaths who only care about forcing their views on others.
You say that you’re told not to follow unlawful orders, yet how many totally unnecessary wars of aggression has the US launched over the last century – and how many times have the soldiers said “No, I refuse to murder people that pose no threat to the US”? None. When you’re ordered by your superior to fire on US citizens and you refuse, THEN you can talk about refusing bad orders. Until then, you’re just another thug who does as his masters command and have no honor.
Ding! Matt his the nail on the head.
This is exactly what happens when people are lulled into complacency and begin to believe that government = country, or that freedom is gifted at our overlords’ will. There’s a reason the military swears to uphold the Constitution, not the presidency. There’s a reason we swear allegiance to the flag, not the government. And there’s a reason why the 2A exists…hint, it’s not hunting.
Only a morally-bankrupt, sub-human gun-grabber could devote his life to stripping others of their freedoms and rights and call OTHERS the traitors. What reprehensible filth, true evil and villainy at its finest. Proof that our “countrymen,” not some foreign force, are the true enemies of this country.
Look at history…the true threats are the people we see every day. They’re the ones who will come to lynch you when their government overlords tell them to do so.
Silver, Like it or not, the country only has one government. The Constitution does not require me to take a bullet for the President, of course, or even to respect the office, but he is the President.
I have chosen to treat the President with respect, even during periods where I thought the President was making foolish decisions that cost the lives of thousands of soldiers. I did not call him a “Nazi”, nor advocate treason.
There are some on the far right who do not choose to offer the current President any similar respect. Since it is a free country, that is their choice.
But when it comes to advocating armed uprising, I draw the line. The Civil War is over, and anyone who wants to re-start the war is a traitor. I will not look the other way, I will not pretend that it is just a joke.
Anyone who takes up arms against the United States deserves what is coming to them. And if they live long enough to get a day in court (they won’t), and they stand up and say “this government is illigitimate”, then history will judge them accordingly; which is to say, as traitors and fools.
At what point does a government reach a corrupt enough state, and the people oppressed enough, that armed uprising is about “freedom fighting” rather than “insurrection?”
Keep in mind, I did not advocate armed uprising at this time. I’m simply intelligent and learned enough to recognize the purpose of the Constitution, the purpose of the 2A, and the fact that governments can themselves be traitorous. The government is NOT America. If the government defies the Constitution and imposes tyranny, THEY are the traitors, and deserve whatever uprising comes about. I’m also historically aware enough to know that brainwashed lemmings, ahem, will be their army to murder any “enemies of the state.”
It’s funny that you advocate the stripping of rights and freedoms, but do not advocate the resistance to oppressive and traitorous government. Pretty much what I’d expect from someone who thinks the holy government should never be kept in check. I wonder who you’d think the horrible traitors were if you lived in 1776.
We at least agree on one thing: traitors deserve swift and merciless comeuppance. We just disagree on who the traitors are.
Thought you might like this too.
trai·tor/ˈtrātər/
Noun:
A person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
So, since the incorruptible rule of law in United States of America is the Constitution, and the country itself IS the Constitution, a traitor then MUST be one who betrays the Constitution. From where I’m sitting, gun-grabbers and the government itself are more traitorous than anyone here.
Silver, you are correct except for one thing. You do not get to define what is and what is not in the Constitution nor what betrays the Constitution.
You said, “from where I’m sitting,”. That means you were stating your opinion. Your opinion is not the Constitution.
You do not get to define what is and what is not in the Constitution nor what betrays the Constitution.
Only 9 unelected old men in dresses get to do that.
“Only 9 unelected old men in dresses get to do that.”
——
Right. As in, not you.
Silver, in 1776, the leaders of the colony openly admitted they were engaged in an act of treason. They then took up arms against an unelected government so they could govern themselves.
We now have an elected government, and if we disagree with it, we can no longer invoke the Declaration, since it was a list of complaints against the King of England.
Your theory that the Declaration is part of the Constitution is absurd. That is like saying that I get to sign a contract in my son’s name because he wouldn’t exist without me.
They are two different documents. One is a declaration of war, and the other is a legal framework for a new country.
Since you are a citizen of that country, you do not get to declare war, nor do you get to start a new one. If you attempt either, there is not really any disagreement over who the traitor is, it’s you.
They then took up arms against an unelected government so they could govern themselves.
That doesnt sound like a democracy if they wanted to govern themselves. Depending on how you interpret “themselves” it is either despotism or anarchy.
We now have an elected government, and if we disagree with it, we can no longer invoke the Declaration…
Yes we can, the DoI recognizes our right to rebel against the federal government. It even says it is our duty, remember the quote I gave you before?
Your theory that the Declaration is part of the Constitution is absurd.
Without the DoI the constitution wouldnt exist. The constitution builds upon the DoI.
One is a declaration of war…
Read it, it is much more than that. It does enumerate rights. Such as rebellion and “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
Since you are a citizen of that country, you do not get to declare war, nor do you get to start a new one.
The DoI gives you that right. Since you apparently forgot my quote, here it is again.
…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…
Matt, I understand that you are quoting the Declaration of Independence. What I am telling you is that it is not a legal document: It does not grant you rights.
For example, if you try to stir up some trouble because you are being denied your rights under the “pursuit of happiness” clause, you won’t have to go further than the local Sheriff to find someone who will explain that the DOI does not have the force of law.
Similarly, if you feel it is your duty under the DOI to alter or abolish the U.S. Government, then you are saying that you are following in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers, and declaring war. (Or, by definition, treason.)
This means that the original post, where certain people were described as “traitors”, is exactly right.
I certainly do not worship the current government. I disagree with most every elected official over one thing or another. But I am not preparing for war, I do not advocate any armed uprising, and I will serve (if needed) to fight against anyone who does.
If Obama assumes the powers of a king, then I will choose differently. For example, if he dissolves the House of Representatives, (even though I despise most of them), I will choose sides differently.
If you honestly think that Obama’s actions rise to the same level as the actions that triggered the DOI, then you are mistaken, sad, and perhaps drunk.
The sheriff doesnt know the law, if he did, he would take a higher paying job as a prosecutor. Don’t believe me? Ask your local sheriff what the significance of Castlerock v Gonzales is.
I’m sure a old accountant with a bad back will be a formidable fighting force, and great asset to the military.
Obama has personally ordered extra-judicial executions of people entitled to due process (Osama Bin Laden), and 3 American citizens. That doesn’t make him kingly? Where is his right to do so enumerated?
And if the DoI is not a legal document, why is it placed at the head of the Code of Laws of the United States of America, under Organic Laws?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law#Organic_laws_of_the_United_States_of_America
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt
Matt,
The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. The Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.
The DOI also separates U.S. Law from British law, which is why it was included in “organic law.”
Since it is part of the organic law, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, The Supreme Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states, to determine that the Constitution was the highest law in the U.S. About the last the the DOI was treated as an actual legal document was in 1830, when the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
So if you want to get into the detailed questions like “was it ratified by the states?”, then yes, you could technically say that it is a “legal” document, but you can’t say that it grants you rights. It does not.
The Declaration of Independence represents our ideal of true freedom, but it does not give you the right to take up arms against any government that you see as unfit or not-quite-free-enough.
Matt,
Also, I think it is funny that when pressed to come up with an Obama action that compares to the actions of King George, you came up with the killing of bin Laden.
Although there are customary laws of war that allow the killing of an enemy commander, there is also the Authorization to Use Military Force Act of Sept. 18, 2001, which specifically ordered “all necessary force” against bin Laden. (That was passed under Bush, by the way.)
As far as executing traitors who have taken up arms against the U.S., I think you can see the message in that pretty clearly. Once you declare war on the United States, you cannot then demand a trial by jury to avoid getting shot.
You choose your team, and you take your chances. If you think this is the same as the acts of King George, then you are not reading your history books.
The colonial legislatures were allowed to levy taxes, muster troops, and pass laws. When the King dissolved the legislatures and revoked their powers, the Declaration of Independence listed that as one of his “illegal” acts. In fact, it was the main one. They did not mention the hanging of traitors, because that was technically not illegal.
Interestingly, they also did mention the King’s refusal to pay certain judges. If you were to make an analogy, I would point that that the GOP has blocked more of Obama’s judge nominations than Democrats ever blocked for any Republican President.
Right now, there are 76 vacant judicial posts — 76 judges who should be on the bench, hearing a mountain of important cases. Thirty-two of these posts have been deemed “judicial emergencies” by the federal court system, because of the backlog of cases or the length of time since the previous judge retired.
The Senate Republicans have resorted to a variety of stalling tactics that are beyond anything ever attempted by Democrats. Who, in this picture, is adopting the attitude of King George?
The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law
The modern SCOTUS’s refusal of recognition of our right to rebellion, is one of the many examples we can use to justify rebellion.
The Supreme Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states
The DoI doesnt reference any rights of the states, only the people.
About the last the the DOI was treated as an actual legal document was in 1830
Which is how we can say that the cause for rebellion is not a “transient cause”, as required by the DoI.
So if you want to get into the detailed questions like “was it ratified by the states?”, then yes, you could technically say that it is a “legal” document
The rights are not given by the state, by rather by god. As the DoI says “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
Also, I think it is funny that when pressed to come up with an Obama action that compares to the actions of King George, you came up with the killing of bin Laden.
The use gov’t twice acknowledged he had a right to trial for both WTC attacks when they indicted him twice. You also ignored the 3 American citizens, and Bin Laden’s wife (who committed no crime) who Obama extra-judically executed.
As far as executing traitors who have taken up arms against the U.S., I think you can see the message in that pretty clearly
To be declared a traitor, you need a trial, which none of those men ever got.
Nice, I like how you’re too foolish to realize that it’s the government that’s betrayed the people (a million times over) and no longer respects or upholds the Constitution, but if people want to try to enforce the Constitution THEY’RE the bad ones.
Just remember your blind devotion to an all-powerful government if another civil war breaks out.
Glocke, everyone in both parties claims that it is the other party that no longer upholds the Constitution.
That has become such an empty phrase that partisans of all stripes seem to have it printed on their business cards. (“I love the Constitution, those other guys don’t.”)
If another Civil War breaks out, everyone will have to choose sides. You will either have to be for the United States, or against it. You seem to have chosen “against”. I have not.
I have no devotion to any “all-powerful” government. (In fact, that is a pretty stupid phrase. Are you devoted to an “all-powerful” gun?) I just plan to pledge my allegiance to this particular republic, rather than throw my lot in with traitors, anarchist fools, and the might-makes-right crowd.
This is not a perfect system of government, but it will have to do.
everyone in both parties claims that it is the other party that no longer upholds the Constitution.
That’s because it’s true – neither Democrats nor Republicans give a crap about the Constitution, they both care about forcing their views on you and controlling your life. Democrats want to control any actions that involve money or independence from the government and Republicans want to control any actions that involve personal choice.
You will either have to be for the United States, or against it. You seem to have chosen “against”. I have not.
Nope. As has been pointed out many times, you’re incapable of distinguishing the GOVERNMENT from the COUNTRY. I’m against our current government, not against the Constitution and what this country was founded on. You choose to side against the Constitution and the notion of freedom and blindly support the government merely because they claim absolute power and you think that gives them the right to absolute power by default.
“Smoke out the insurrectionists who dominate the pro-gun movement. And call them what they are: Traitors who r preparing 4 war w/ our gov’t.”
Old Armenian Saying: Those who want to take your gun, want to take your life.
CSGV wants us all dead. And, IMHO, they will use any means to kill us.
I, personally, will not go quietly into that long goodnight. But that is just me. 🙂
True words.
This just goes to show that freedom of thought does not equate to freedom of speech.
I didnt read all but i see some of what we always see some left some right some think smart with head up ### missing big picture. An old man told me he lived by a simple credo “right is right and wrong is wrong.” Yes many dont vote and yes that is a bad sign in lots of ways. To add something here with meaning to me”some people see things as they are and say I see things as they never were and say why not.” Our gov. Is quite lost and quite corrupted not to mention pentagon and cia coroperations that pay and pay and our reps feed at that trough and many decisions are not for the good of the people. There is no honesty no openess elections are bought and punctuated with bs and soft questions both parties have been swallowed by a system formed over decaned to a point what we have which is a deconstructed middle class overseas simply for fed reserve greed and the fed is such a blood sucking abomanation. So what we have now is a beast that does NOT follow nor believe in the constitution curcomvents said document at every chance all is speeding up our country is in a very perilous position and they are tryinh to take ALL guns. Why and with all the imminent attack from within and without why doesent anyone EVER bring up Switzerland. Train your caring patriotic citizens(almost all hunters and good citizen gun owners) to help or im sure other ideas. An aside is in order here i have known many ww2 vets and they truly have been deep patriots most of their lives that is until the last decade. Even they have turned a discusted upset and angered eye toward their gov. My friends it is bad and if we all were told the truth and we are seeing it as we speak it would be and is a terrifing spectacle of a gov. gone wrong and with such an attitude towards we the people that they dont want us in the conversation like when a marriage gone bad. No communication real transfere of workable bedrock constitutionally honost and honorable ideas. How do they do and why do they think and decide on the continuosly bad and damaging ideas. If they really tried to work together with the people and set a good track record fed states counties cities gangs prisons REAL education everyone works accountability for little kids crimes and on and on with true leadership and real consequinces across the board and stop trying to dumb down and make excuses and baby everyone. Lets get real. So guns get real across the board but gov. get off and get right stop the criminal educate and gd jobs and have real tough rules about how people that use guns for bad things are taken care of. Bullying in school what a normal thing but where are the teachers if that happened to my kids i would take care of it if the school didnt. Yes tighten up who can get a gun but it will never stop anything but if they have a gun and shouldnt go break rocks for a year in Arizona they counceling and job training then help and follow up etc. If you help these people some number of times rapists or all violent crime and some others but this is about guns and people that use them so 3-4 retries no good then terminate. All u babies out there get real why should we overcroud jails and prisons for them. As a country we murder all the time simply for IMC and to keep populace distracted like a majician would for a slighy of hand trick.
Anti-Gun Rights Advocates = Traitors
Voters who are anti-run rights = Traitors
Politicians who are anti-run rights = Traitors
Politicians who are against the Contitution of the US = Traitors
See I just added the word anti to each of their sentences!
Comments are closed.