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

Originally posted by atreides

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.

I'm not sure why you are trying to drag me off topic, but this will be my last response.

Thanks so much for pointing out my grammar error. I feel much better knowing the grammar police is watching my posts.

Criminal does not have the same type of defined meaning as paper or book. That is downright silly. If thats the case, let me ask you this: How is it possible, for two people to be arrested for the same thing, but one to be let free with a warning and one to have charges stick?

if the definition of crime and criminal are so iron clad, there should be no question about it. You commit the 'crime', you are a 'criminal' and deserve to be punished. Yet in these situations, one person is labeled a criminal, and one not.

Finally, again, this is beside the point and nothing more than an attempt to derail. My point is clear, but in case you missed it, I'll say it again:

Every single revolutionary in history, was considered a criminal by someone. Washington, Paine, Guevarra, King, X, Ghandi, Lenin....yet others consider them to be the models that they wish to follow.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Criminal does not have the same type of defined meaning as paper or book. That is downright silly. If thats the case, let me ask you this: How is it possible, for two people to be arrested for the same thing, but one to be let free with a warning and one to have charges stick?

What punishment someone receives for committing a crime is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "criminal." A criminal is someone who acts in contravention to a resolution enacted by a law-making body. You said "The words 'criminal' and 'crime' are completely subjective." and that's the only thing I'm addressing here, not any grander philosophical message you've since decided to tack on.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
if the definition of crime and criminal are so iron clad, there should be no question about it. You commit the 'crime', you are a 'criminal' and deserve to be punished. Yet in these situations, one person is labeled a criminal, and one not.

What punishment someone receives for committing a crime is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "criminal." A criminal is someone who acts in contravention to a resolution enacted by a law-making body. You said "The words 'criminal' and 'crime' are completely subjective." and that's the only thing I'm addressing here, not any grander philosophical message you've since decided to tack on.

Finally, again, this is beside the point and nothing more than an attempt to derail. My point is clear, but in case you missed it, I'll say it again:

Every single revolutionary in history, was considered a criminal by someone. Washington, Paine, Guevarra, King, X, Ghandi, Lenin....yet others consider them to be the models that they wish to follow.

Whether or not the actions of a criminal are justifiable is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "criminal." A criminal is someone who acts in contravention to a resolution enacted by a law-making body. You said "The words 'criminal' and 'crime' are completely subjective." and that's the only thing I'm addressing here, not any grander philosophical message you've since decided to tack on.

Originally posted by atreides

What punishment someone receives for committing a crime is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "criminal." A criminal is someone who acts in contravention to a resolution enacted by a law-making body. You said "The words 'criminal' and 'crime' are completely subjective." and that's the only thing I'm addressing here, not any grander philosophical message you've since decided to tack on.



What punishment someone receives for committing a crime is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "criminal." A criminal is someone who acts in contravention to a resolution enacted by a law-making body. You said "The words 'criminal' and 'crime' are completely subjective." and that's the only thing I'm addressing here, not any grander philosophical message you've since decided to tack on.



Whether or not the actions of a criminal are justifiable is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "criminal." A criminal is someone who acts in contravention to a resolution enacted by a law-making body. You said "The words 'criminal' and 'crime' are completely subjective." and that's the only thing I'm addressing here, not any grander philosophical message you've since decided to tack on.

1)I am not speaking of punishments. I am speaking in terms of actual arrest vs. being let go. Are you arguing that it is within a police man's rights to decide who is a criminal and who is not?

Also, again, if it is the same 'crime' how can one person become a 'criminal' because of it and the other not?

It is absolutely subjective, and you can dance around it all you want. Crimes are defined by perception-they are decided on by what someone or some group deem appropriate.

Ideas based on perception, again, are the definition of subjective.

2)I've 'since decided to tack on'? In my very fiurst post i stated my position, and in my second I clarified it. That you dont get it, is the problem.

3)Are you going to actually discuss the topic, or keep repeating this (completely false) nonsense?

4)Again, what makes a crime in one area may not be in another. SUBJECTIVE.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

1)I am not speaking of punishments. I am speaking in terms of actual arrest vs. being let go. Are you arguing that it is within a police man's rights to decide who is a criminal and who is not?

For the umpteenth time, I'm not making any argument at all. I'm correcting your word-use error: the word "criminal" has an established definition.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Also, again, if it is the same 'crime' how can one person become a 'criminal' because of it and the other not?

They're both criminals. Once again, a criminal is a person who acts in contravention of the laws created by a law making body. Whether they're caught, prosecuted or punished is irrelevant.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
It is absolutely subjective, and you can dance around it all you want. Crimes are defined by perception-they are decided on by what someone or some group deem appropriate.

I believe I'm being rather straightforward in addressing your original statement. If "dancing around" = not participating in your subsequent arguments then maybe I am guilty! Unfortunately, they're just not of interest to me. As I've said, my only interest is in the very specific point of your word-use error, not any grander, philosophical imperatives you seem to be struggling to communicate.

I dunno, perhaps someone else will be interested in them, though? Good luck!

[edit on 1-4-2010 by atreides]

okay, seriously, get on topic or get out.

1)For the umpteenth time definition does not mean that something is objective. That the topic is open to interpretation and perspective is what makes it subjective. For someone correcting wording and grammar, you ought to get a better grasp on them.

2)Are they? One is only a criminal if one is labeled a criminal. It is not a tangible thing. Therefore, once again, it is open to interpretation. You said it yourself-they acted outside of what the lawmaking bodies decide. That means that someone had to decide what was a crime and what wasnt. again, subjectivity.

3)You continue to avoid addressing the statement. You continue to dwell on your silly little grammar lesson, instead of addressing the actual point which was made, which is a clear cut sign of not being able to argue it. Well done.

My subsequent arguments? Are you kidding me? Is this how you approach every thread? Avoid the actual topic, attack a posters grammar, and whatever you do, dont actually speak to the topic at hand.

Quality.

4)Harp on my word choice all you want. Doesnt change the fact that it is a correct sentiment, and that you are using the age old tactic of deflection for your lack of ability to debate the actual topic.

There is no struggle to communicate-although comprehension from your end does seem to be a struggle.

Keep up the good work kiddo.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by captaintyinknots]

You seem upset.

Edit because I am embarrassed I fed a troll

[edit on 1-4-2010 by captaintyinknots]

Considering the State of the Nation as a whole today , it is a Crime not To.............

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by atreides

 

You can tell emotion through a computer? Wow, thats impressive.

So, do you care to debate the topic, or are you gonna continue to prove only that you are a juvenile?

Once again, as I've repeatedly said, I don't care to debate your topics - numerous as they may be - at all. I only care to correct a word-use error. Any further issues you've raised are a conversation you've been having with yourself.

Thanks, captaintyinknots! Best of luck in all your endeavors -

Edit to remove troll food

[edit on 1-4-2010 by captaintyinknots]

Originally posted by whatukno
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.

That's what I thought.

And I can't BELIEVE people are talking like they are about this on the Internet! Like it's a private forum or something! What are people THINKING???

reply to post by whatukno

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.

I guess they should arrest most of congress and the White House then, not to mention most working on Wall Street.

Oppose by force the authority thereof : OPPOSE BY FORCE THE CONSTITUTION = SEDITION. Obama, the FED and Congress are guilty.

Prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the US : aka PREVENT OR HINDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO BE APPLIED, it's a crime. Congress, Obama and the FED again guilty.

SEIZE, TAKE OR POSSESS any property... The FED, wall street banks, congress and Obama, all guilty.

Time to put those crooks in jail for 20 years.

reply to post by Vitchilo


I wouldn't mind seeing the FED board arrested under RICO and have all their assets seized. We could eliminate the National Debt immediately.

Just tell our creditors, sorry, that bank was running a ponzi scheme, your debts against the US was with this bank, get your money out of them.

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.

If someone is really serious about overthrowing the government, do you really think this matters to them? Did John Adams say "Aw, hell; I can't do this! King George will hang me. I'll just go have a pint."

It's a sorry state of affairs if, during a crisis of national magnitude, would-be leaders choose personal safety over moral obligation. I am in no way promoting a revolution/civil war over the HCP, but I read so many posts that seem to indicate that the posters don't think there is ever a set of circumstances in which overthrow is needed. That is a slap in the face of the Founding Fathers and an admission that, whatever you call youself, you are a full-blown Statist who values the "state" over personal liberty.

So we are clear any government that overthrows its nation of the people is no longer a government united or fit to run a country, I hope you can make that distinction.

I forgot the exact words but if a government suppreses its people and no longer becomes reliable you are allowed to take back your country that is in the legislation, make no mistake.
That's only when it becomes a tyranical or oppressive one.


When they infringe on your constituional rights, then you have your right to go to war with any nation or government, yes even within your own. A civil war usually happens then.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by menguard]

[edit on 2-4-2010 by menguard]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by hawkiye

 

I am taking this quite seriously. However. I don't think that a violent revolution falls under the category of "not harming anyone". Apparently to you a violent revolution harms no one.

But if the law stated in the OP is not to your liking and therefore only to YOU is unconstitutional, then we can just go straight to the source and use 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.

I would call a violent revolution against the Constitutionally elected government levying war against them. So if it's not Sedition, it's Treason. Either fines and a 20 year jail sentence or the punishment for Treason. Because apparently YOU get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which to YOU are unconstitutional and therefore can be ignored.

I mean you can try your defense in a courtroom. I wouldn't recommend it myself. But you certainly are free to try.

If "not harming anyone" was our highest priority, Elizabeth II would be on our coinage. It's certainly not my highest priority, but I don't think it needs to come to that.

reply to post by Office 4256

I am in no way promoting a revolution/civil war over the HCP, but I read so many posts that seem to indicate that the posters don't think there is ever a set of circumstances in which overthrow is needed. That is a slap in the face of the Founding Fathers and an admission that, whatever you call youself, you are a full-blown Statist who values the "state" over personal liberty.

Well, it is a slap in the face to the Founding Fathers when people want to destroy the great experiment that they have created through violent revolution. Given the fact that they put in a perfectly appropriate way to change the government. That is through political change. If you want to change this government, there is no law that cannot be repealed.

If you believe that the proponents of a revolution have freedom in mind when they talk about their revolution, you have not read what these people are talking about.

All over the world, there have been revolutions that instead of freeing the people, have completely dominated the people.

The Russian Revolution.

Cuban Revolution.

Iranian Revolution. (Might want to take a real close look at that one, that is where most of these Right Winger revolutionaries see the United States, a theocracy.)

Libyan Revolution.

The FAR Right wants to turn this country into a theocracy. They have absolutely zero interest in returning to the Constitution. Of course they aren't going to tell you directly that is what they want, they will blow smoke up your butt about returning to freedom, returning to family values, Christian values, etc. But what they want is a Theocracy.

reply to post by endisnighe


The congress has been working for years against the constitution and the people, passing laws and bills that are no popular but still they do what they do regardless of the people's that elected them, rejections.

In refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal income tax law but their oath of office as well. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.

Well, guess what the same way that congress has stop listening to the people it also apply to the many times that states has been calling for the Article V convention.

Yes, I remember it was a thread about the article V convention right after the unpopular bailout for the rich last year.

Guess what congress has been ignoring the calls of that article like they has been doing for years already, they careless what the people wants.

Congress will keep ignoring the peoples request under the law until the people will have no choice but to use force, then the people will be dealt with by force also.

Lets no forget who write the laws in the nation, is not you or me is congress. . . at their benefit and their "discretion".

Right now is going to be a big track down on possible "leaders" that can become a "problem" to the government Establishment that we have right now.

This will squash any possibilities of insurrections in the nation when people desperate enough will fall for a leader figure.

Believe it or now the government already has covered all possibilities for the Nations population to go far enough to cause too much trouble.








[edit on 2-4-2010 by marg6043]

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.

" 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."



Now, if a State is choosing to leave the "Union" and not fight, overthrow, prevent, take from by force, the government of the " United States ", and if they just vote to secede, and do so, then the above law does not apply whereas no harm has been done to the "United States, it's government, or property." That State is leaving with what it came in with. And if this is the only argument against secession then it's weak and invalid as it pertains to secession.


Now notice in the following part...

" or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.."


The State of Utah is 85% US government owned. They are going to declare the right of eminent domain on all of it claiming it all belongs to the sovereign State of Utah. This action will go right away to the Supreme Court, and if the decision is in their favor, they will offer to the people the option of succession on the ballot. This may take a year or two.