It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

page: 28
20
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Honestly...there really is no hope for you to understand laws and statutes.

I suppose that the Federalist Papers are a living document as well????

This thought that deposing of a tyrannical Govt only applies to the recently (at that time) English rule is beyond moronic.

Gotta love Progressives. Especially ones that rework history like an activist judge denies or upholds a law based on "Global standing" or some UN policy.




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
And we are back at that again are we?


Your meandering diatribes took us here. I am only pointing out the absurdity of your stance.


And I said that it would have to be a separate appropriations bill from the military appropriations bill, and since we can't be having any unpaid for expenses, that would mean that arming the Militia would be through surplus equipment.


Says you. I say I get a separate budget line that pays for all the goodies you want us to have for adhering to the militia clause.


I say the early Vietnam Era M-16 would be appropriate for the Militia.


Too bad for you that there are barely any left in circulation.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

I'm sorry you feel that way. But i believe that this republic is one of the people, by the people, and for the people. And as such, any attempted overthrow of that constitutionally elected government would indeed be treason under article III USC.

In fact that would qualify as an insurrection, and it would be up to the militia to suppress it.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Yes, depose a tyrannical government (England) not the constitutionally elected body of the United States Government. Actually in fact, according to the United States Constitution that is REALLY illegal:

Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution:


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Hmm, declaring war against the United States would definitely qualify as Treason, and not really be a roll the Militia's are authorized to do.


you have a comprehension problem.

the Federal Government is NOT the United States...the states and territories, and "We, the people" are....if the government engages in practices, that are counter to the freedom, security, and prosperity of the people, and/or knowingly engages in illegalities that are harmful to the freedom, security, and prosperity of the people, the people have the right to rise, and say "no more"...and they also have the right to remove said harmful elements by force, if necessary.

the government is supposed to operate at the pleasure of the people...they are supposed to derive their authority and power from the consent of the governed...once the people rescind that consent, the government is no longer valid, and is no longer afforded any kind of protection.

you don't seem to understand that the people are ultimately more powerful than the government...this is how it was intended to work...people are kinda weak, and pussified nowadays, and don't know the power they have....but that doesn't change the fact that this is how it is supposed to work..



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Yeah, you do have the right to overthrow the government, it happens every two years, its called an election.

I don't care how low you think the government has gone, you don't have the right to kill American citizens because their politics aren't to your specifications. Elect better people.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

lol, i love how when you reply to me, you tend to use simpleton logic, take everything to absurd extremes, and make things up to reply to, that i never even said..

for the most part, i show you a measure of respect, by providing well thought-out responses to what you say(most of which you ignore)...i would expect the same from you...

that being said... an election is not an overthrow...and election is an election...and you seem to be under the mistaken impression that elections are fair, properly administered, and not tampered with in any way....it would appear that you believe elections are legitimate, and genuine, and that they are not stolen, or bought...this is incorrect.

lastly, i NEVER said anyone had the right to kill american citizens because their politics aren't to my liking....i never even said anything remotely LIKE that...this is what i mean about you making things up to reply to, that i never even said...stop it.

i'd love to elect better people, but the system to do that is corrupt and broken...
edit on 7-18-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

You only believe the system is broken. It's not, its corrupt, but corruption can be fixed.

No need to start executing constitutionally elected citizens of this nation because you don't like how politics is played.

Change the players if you don't like the game, don't tip the board over cause your losing.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Good hell.

This only stands as Treason or Insurrection if the Govt you seem to back more then the People, is upholding its end of the deal.

Once the Fed Govt violates the Constitution, it becomes an invalid Govt.

This is not difficult to understand. It requires more than singular dimensional thinking, as it drives at meaning and theory of something.

I suppose that the same, in basis, was applied to revolting against the Crown. That the King is ordained by God, and to go against the King was "insurrection".

I am willing to bet Lunch that you would have been a person arguing against the Americas from becoming independent. And would have laid groundwork, in a Progressive manner, showing that laws created by the Crown forbid such a thing.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Electoral college....that right there is how it's broken....popular vote is more representative of what the people actually want.


No need to start executing constitutionally elected citizens of this nation because you don't like how politics is played.


see, and again...you ignored what i said, made something up to reply to, that i never said, used simpleton logic, and absurd extremes...what the hell, man?

where did i say anything even remotely like what you're suggesting?



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

You said:


...and they also have the right to remove said harmful elements by force, if necessary.


Do you plan on tickling them out of office?



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

This will explain the American revolution to you better than I can.




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

So, your sources are Cracked?

Gotta hand it to you. At least it wasn't something from Huffington Post.


Dude, you really do need to study some history.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

I suppose the smithsonian is wrong too?

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Is Sarah Palin a history teacher now?



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

And what does any of those items have to do with your misunderstanding of the topic at hand?

Again, when challenged, you change the subject and offer off-topic statements as some sort of backing to your cause.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

No sir, i replied to your post about American history, you did not like the source material, i provided alternate source material.

That was it.

I'm certainly not going to let you goad me into another round of insults. Insult me all you like. I have thick skin. I'm just not going to fall for the bait anymore.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok

No sir, i replied to your post about American history, you did not like the source material, i provided alternate source material.

And again, what do those items have to do with what we are talking about.



originally posted by: HauntWok
That was it.

I'm certainly not going to let you goad me into another round of insults. Insult me all you like. I have thick skin. I'm just not going to fall for the bait anymore.

Thank you.


I have no clue as to what you are talking about.
I have yet to call you names.

The problem is this......Your Progressive ideals and stance on certain truths you try to twist and turn.

You have been called out on all of these things and you don't like it.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

I've only been given opinion disguised as fact, I've been given conjecture, assumption, and lack of critical thinking.

All in the guise of "calling me out" as you say.

I have theorized a mutually beneficial solution to the mass shooting epidemic. And i have been met with ridicule and scorn. I don't really care though, pragmatic ideas often are scary to some people.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
I have theorized a mutually beneficial solution to the mass shooting epidemic. And i have been met with ridicule and scorn. I don't really care though, pragmatic ideas often are scary to some people.


Your proposed tax/insurance would only serve to disenfranchise those who could not afford it and is thus a non-starter.

Your other offering is to revert to the militia clause but not abide by the dictum that it is required to supply weaponry and instead posit that it should be outdated weapons that are no longer available.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman

I've only been given opinion disguised as fact, I've been given conjecture, assumption, and lack of critical thinking.

All in the guise of "calling me out" as you say.

I have theorized a mutually beneficial solution to the mass shooting epidemic. And i have been met with ridicule and scorn. I don't really care though, pragmatic ideas often are scary to some people.


You can't be serious.

You should probably go back and read the thread as a whole.

You have been ridiculed because your Progressive ideals are more wrong then anything imaginable.

It has been shown to you by numerous people here. Yet, because of your incorrect Progressive stance, you refuse to accept this.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If someone can't afford insurance, they probably cannot afford a firearm to begin with.

And i just proposed the surplus military hardware because of budget constraints.



new topics




 
20
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join