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.

 

Planning on Overthrowing the government? It's a Crime!

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Logarock
 



Yes its a crime becouse its so stupid. The lefty radicals relized years ago that the only way to overthrow the governement was through the democratic process.


Now you're getting it!

Want a change in this government? Elect better people! If you think they are all crooked, run yourself.

No need to commit Seditious Conspiracy or Treason to change the government. You just need to put better representatives in Congress.


Yes! Just get elected and then be seditious and treasonious under the cover of an elected offcial.




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Oh please do grow up.

This is a nation by the people and for the people, we have a constitution. If you want a revolution, have a political revolution. Get a majority of people behind your idea, throw out the elected officials that you don't like, put in people that you do like. Have them repeal laws that you don't like.

Otherwise, if you are all for Seditious and Treasonous violent revolutionary action. I have shown two reasons why this is not a good idea. Take it for what it is, these are real facts. I don't think a judge is going to care whether you think that Article III section 3 of the US Constitution does not apply to your treasonous war against the United States. The end result could be the same.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
"Me and my other shaman friends are going to overthrow and take over the entire world." mwahahahahaha (insert thunder and lightening soundFX here)

Now, did I just threaten every nation upon Earth and break their similar laws? Are they all going to come and get me and toss me into the dungeon for 20 years .. each.



(oh, btw, just to cover my butt ... APRIL FOOLS
)



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


I think they are looking for "Credible Threats"
Probably why those on this board will never have to deal with a knock at the door from the NSA.




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Thats it, your a troll. A fairly good one at that though be it an overbearing and condesending sort of troll.

You are so adamant that one must suspect that you consider spirited and loud public demonstrations to be a sort of violence.

You probably consider large groups of Tea Party folks to be nothing more than rabble rousers and anyone that is very pro 2nd amendment to be just slightly removed from a terrorist.

You probably hate to see folks assemble in mass if the issue at hand is not one you agree with.

Good luck in your run for whatever.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Actually, as many can attest to, I am very pro 1st Amendment, and very pro 2nd Amendment.

If you want to hold a peaceful demonstration about ANYTHING. I am all for it. I might not agree with your message. (I don't particularly agree with the TPM, fact, I think they are a bunch of extreme right wingers) But their right to hold rallies, protest, and demonstrate should never be infringed.

I am all for the 2nd Amendment. I like guns, I think that this country would be better off if everyone except convicted felons had a gun. Seems to me, that statistics show that crime has dropped in places where they have concealed carry laws. Got to respect that right?

But if you want to destroy this country by starting a Revolution? I can't help you, in fact I would if push comes to shove fight against anyone who would be willing to destroy this country. Because violent revolutionaries have the exact same goal as Al Qaeda. Their means to that end may differ, but it is my opinion that violent revolutionaries only goal is to destroy this country and twist it into some deranged version of what they and only they think America should be. They in my opinion don't want to protect the constitution, they want to rip it up. They want their own version of freedom and that version doesn't include a lot of people. I can never and I will never support any violent revolutionary movement and anyone with their own mind shouldn't either.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I was going to make a thread similar to this.

Of course it's a crime. Everyone's always talking about wanting to keep the country safe from 'terrorists'. We went to war for it. So of course we have to keep it safe from nut-jobs on our own soil, with guns. Lots and lots of guns.

I think I live on the wrong planet. I really think I do. I'm going to go make an "I'm an alien, ask me anything" thread now


[edit on 1-4-2010 by MIMRblazin]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
My 2 cents:

The nation the founding fathers gave us was a democratic republic. The existence of the United States depended upon the will of the individual states. When they signed the Constitution they created a Federal Government to execute certain laws for the benefit of the respected states. The purpose was the defend the States with a continental army, regulate interstate commerce, and provide for the general welfare (laws to protect individual freedoms and rights).

The Constitution never superseded State sovereignty, and guaranteed under the 10th Amendment that all rights not listed in the Constitution belonged to the several states respectively.

But a funny thing happened along the way. A dispute arose between States rights people and "Federalists" in which the Supreme Court ended up declaring that Federal law trumped State law and that the Supreme court was the final arbitrator in any dispute. We were then at that time no longer a democratic republic. We became what is commonly referred to as the "Union", and not the "United States of America".

At the beginning of the civil war, several States seeing their 10th Amendment rights violated saw the contract (Constitution) as being nullified, and so they voted and seceded from the United States and reformed into their own "Confederacy" where the States came first and central limited government came second. However, a bloody war was fought and the breakaway states were forced to come back into the "Union" It has stayed this way from that time on.

The revolution people fear will come will only come if and when the people believe the "central" government has violated the contract between them and the government, called the Constitution. But we get to vote at least two more times before then. I hope no one revolts but changes through election, the way things are today.

However, the Constitution still does not forbid secession from the "Union" and there is no law say they must stay in the "Union". I believe we shall see states secede in a year or two and reform into smaller blocks. An aspect is already preparing itself for this event, namely, starting with Utah. Utah has declared the right of eminent domain on most if not all land belonging to the federal government in their state, which is 85% of the state. If they win in the Supreme Court, they will shortly secede after that. And this will be the revolution we shall see, not a fight over the "Union" but a fight for the right to secede.

Obama in the end may turn out to be the father of change after all, in that he started the new movement for states rights and the right to secede from the "union"

BTW, if you do a good study you will see the civil war was not about slavery, though it was the last straw, but about states right to separate and reform a new government to their liking.












[edit on 1-4-2010 by Fromabove]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Well ok fine but who said I was for the violent overthrow of the government? You are talking to me as if I had promoted this.

Having said that, I do believe there is a time for all things and that this country was born in "sedition". Just from a purely philosophical standpoint it is rather hypocritical to give no room for a point in time when violence isnt called for. This nation was born in violence and so violence can never be removed form the table of defensive measures to preserve rights. And whiel I agree with you in the main I also believe that a total rejection of violence to be downright unamerican.




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



Well ok fine but who said I was for the violent overthrow of the government? You are talking to me as if I had promoted this.


Well then...




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Logarock
 




But if you want to destroy this country by starting a Revolution? I can't help you, in fact I would if push comes to shove fight against anyone who would be willing to destroy this country. Because violent revolutionaries have the exact same goal as Al Qaeda. Their means to that end may differ, but it is my opinion that violent revolutionaries only goal is to destroy this country and twist it into some deranged version of what they and only they think America should be. They in my opinion don't want to protect the constitution, they want to rip it up. They want their own version of freedom and that version doesn't include a lot of people. I can never and I will never support any violent revolutionary movement and anyone with their own mind shouldn't either.



Thats fine but are you aware that the most radical anti-constitutional types are on the left or have been on the left and have taken to the democratic method of making thier goals? Party politics over guns and bombs but the goal of undermining the constitution none the less?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

Seditious conspiracy




or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States





So, we should be rounding up Bob Barr and all members of congress?


The US House of Representatives Thursday passed the District of Columbia appropriations bill and in so doing removed an 11-year-old amendment barring the District from implementing the medical marijuana law approved by voters in 1998. Known as the Barr amendment after then Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), the amendment has been attacked by both medical marijuana and DC home rule advocates for years as an unconscionable intrusion into District affairs.


stopthedrugwar.org...

If that is not a seditious act, I don't know what is.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


And something for you....

Just a case of boxer shorts.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Democracy is a crime against the constitution and treason!

The OP acts like it just some law I don't like.... First of all Statutes are not laws they are just corporate policy. And it is not just me there are millions!

I have stood in thier de facto courts and defended myself. What I recommend to you is to snap out of the media fog you are in. It's not just a few whackos in the wilderness who are angry. It is millions of everyday Americans, your neighbors. If idiots can't stop believing and repeating the media BS mantra that its just a few nut case extremists then revolution is inevitable!

As 500,000 a month continue to lose thier jobs, and people continue to get put out of thier homes in the mortgage fiat money scheme where do you think it's going to end up? Millions of people out of work out of thier homes with nothing left to loose and you think telling them to vote for one more crooked politician is going to help? If you can't grasp that simple logic then there is no point in me continuing to argue with ignorance.

I do not want a hot revolution I want the brain dead sheeple to wake the f*** up and quit stealing from the producers under color of law using a perverted system called democracy thinking they have the right to vote themselves the fruits of others labors.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


To the OP,

Can you provide links to the threads here on ATS that you are talking about? I do not see anyone here outright calling for a violent overthrow of the government. A few examples would be helpful.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384

Seditious conspiracy




If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


You could be subject to a fine. Or you could be jailed for up to 20 years.

Sorry, your little song and dance with the Declaration of Independence doesn't cut it. It in fact is a crime to conspire to bring down the United States Government by force. Sorry internet revolutionaries. But those are the facts. In fact in a way you are putting a lot of liability on the ownership of ATS for discussing such things on a public forum.


It's very problematic when someone learns how to use the U.S. Code and then fancies himself an attorney with no more intimate understanding of the law. You need to acquaint yourself with what "to conspire" means before you start playing advocate to ATS.

There are four (4) things a prosecution must establish in order to prove the existence of a conspiracy. You'd be best advised to pause in your reading of Section 2384 at the words "to conspire" until you know what those four things are ...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Every revolutionary in history, every single one, has been considered and enemy or a criminal by those he wished to overthrow.

The words 'criminal' and 'crime' are completely subjective. Its all a matter of perception.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Every revolutionary in history, every single one, has been considered and enemy or a criminal by those he wished to overthrow.

The words 'criminal' and 'crime' are completely subjective. Its all a matter of perception.


Etymologically, they're not at all subjective. They have very objective definitions. A criminal is a person who acts in contravention of a law established by a body that makes laws.

You can argue about the legitimacy of XYZ law, ABC legislature, etc., but the term "criminal" is objective, not subjective.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by atreides

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Every revolutionary in history, every single one, has been considered and enemy or a criminal by those he wished to overthrow.

The words 'criminal' and 'crime' are completely subjective. Its all a matter of perception.


Etymologically, they're not at all subjective. They have very objective definitions. A criminal is a person who acts in contravention of a law established by a body that makes laws.

You can argue about the legitimacy of XYZ law, ABC legislature, etc., but the term "criminal" is objective, not subjective.

I disagree, but at this point it is purely semantics.

The point is that the term criminal, just like the term terrorist, can be attached to anyone that one wishes to attach a negative stigma to.

Crimes are man made. They are decided upon. They are not a tangible thing. And therefore the term can be twisted and distorted in any way those in a position of power wish.

Again, Washington, Jefferson, Paine-these were criminals in the eyes of the British Gov't. Yet we consider them the models of true patriotism.

Subjective.

From wiki(yes, i know, not the best source):

Objectivity is both a central and elusive concept in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

Subjectivity refers to a person's perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. Much of scientific evidence, statistics and methods of measurement are considered subjective although the term is frequently used casually to refer to personal opinions. In philosophy, the term can either be contrasted with or linked with objectivity.

So yes, the idea of crime is subjective-that is, it depends on a person's perspective or opinion.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

I disagree, but at this point it is purely semantics.


Ummm, it is not "purely [I'm assuming you mean 'merely'] semantics" it is entirely semantics.

You made a statement about semantics (the meaning of a word). I'm only addressing semantics here, not any grander philosophical imperative you seem to be trying to communicate.

"Criminal" has a specific, defined and objective meaning as much as the words "book," "envelope," "dirt," and "lightbulb" have.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join