White House Petition To Try Dianne Feinstein For Treason Crosses Threshold For Response

you have to reach 100,000 signatures to just get a response. the response will be "no, we are still going to take your guns, and now we know who has them".

reply to post by sandman441


So what. Cant and wont happen. You can get all the signatures you want. She didnt commit treason.

reply to post by sandman441


There are many more on the other side that want gun control than on your side that dont. Deal with it like you had to deal with a black president. Things they are a changing. Good thing too. Too much of the old ways leads to old fashioned ideas and old fashioned idealogies. Next thing they will say girls cant wear pants to school again like when I was a kid.

reply to post by neo96


Your forefathers knew nothing of automatic weapons or magazine clips or any other high powered rifle. Long gun ball and powder is what they legislated and what you have a right to. Have at it. Leave the big guns for the military .

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by sandman441

 

There are many more on the other side that want gun control than on your side that dont. Deal with it like you had to deal with a black president. Things they are a changing. Good thing too. Too much of the old ways leads to old fashioned ideas and old fashioned idealogies. Next thing they will say girls cant wear pants to school again like when I was a kid.

That's 100% a question of the state you're standing in. The sales figures ...or the money talking...is screaming the opposite of your words and the statements of politicians. I'll take the numbers that don't lie. Money spent and NICS check run. They're busting records and creating shortages of everything from coast to coast and have been now for weeks.

The "majority" is a term I've yet seen defined OR supported in any independent, data based way. Just opinions supported by opinion polls of maybe 1,000 people ...often less. Well, 1.000 people in a media or gallup poll don't represent 300+ Million and again, money is the speech that doesn't lie. It just sits there to be recognized or ignored and doesn't much care either way for opinion.

Money says the Politicians are going down a VERY poorly considered path.

reply to post by karen61560


The musket was the epitome of technology of their time go tell criminals to give up their guns good luck there.

Guess some people are fine having the government and the police in the 21st century while the rest of us are stuck in the 18th.

when they get done taking your guns away this is all you will have left to fight them with along with bows and arrows



thelessonlocker.com...

reply to post by ChesterJohn
Oh now, that's all we need!

Why, I just spent 3 evening periods learning how Central and South America were over-taken by sword and muzzle loader. 168 Spaniards slaughtered thousands of Inca in the span of a short afternoon without a casualty among themselves! They even captured the Inca Ruler at the end! See? If we just think happy thoughts we can do it!

Who's with me?!

Hello? Hellooo? (Looks around and wonders where everyone suddenly went) Umm.. Guys... The enemy the other way!

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by neo96

 

Your forefathers knew nothing of automatic weapons or magazine clips or any other high powered rifle. Long gun ball and powder is what they legislated and what you have a right to. Have at it. Leave the big guns for the military .

Lets examine this line of thinking since you apply it to the Second Amendment. To do so, we examine the First Amendment. That amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The clause we will examine, to equate it to your reasoning, is the following: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...or abridging...the press..." In today's terms, we recognize the word "press" as the media or journalist. The thing is, that isn't the intended usage of the word when it was written.

Looking at the Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language (widely used during the late 1700s -- specifically at the time of ratification of the Constitution), it doesn't define the "press" as our understanding but rather the instrument to facility our speech; the printing press (or the machine of the time that was utilized to augment our speech).

It would seem, according to your logic presented and what I write above, that we are only afforded protection from Government intervention in our use of the press; not the Internet or any other modern means of how we express our speech. This is why your view that the Founders only knew of "muskets" (never mind that American long rifles were the emerging technology during this time and was a drastic leap in arms technology), doesn't make sense nor is it logical.

It was for this very reason they utilized a broad term; arms; to encompass and recognize that what they have today will be different tomorrow. The same with using the term "the press"; to recognize and protect the citizen's Right and access to publish and disseminate their speech.

ETA: Hat tip to Chester just as I was getting the definition of the time for "arms"

Weapons of offence, or armour of defence.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by neo96

 

Your forefathers knew nothing of automatic weapons or magazine clips or any other high powered rifle. Long gun ball and powder is what they legislated and what you have a right to. Have at it. Leave the big guns for the military .

Lets examine this line of thinking since you apply it to the Second Amendment. To do so, we examine the First Amendment. That amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The clause we will examine, to equate it to your reasoning, is the following: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...or abridging...the press..." In today's terms, we recognize the word "press" as the media or journalist. The thing is, that isn't the intended usage of the word when it was written.

Looking at the Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language (widely used during the late 1700s -- specifically at the time of ratification of the Constitution), it doesn't define the "press" as our understanding but rather the instrument to facility our speech; the printing press (or the machine of the time that was utilized to augment our speech).

It would seem, according to your logic presented and what I write above, that we are only afforded protection from Government intervention in our use of the press; not the Internet or any other modern means of how we express our speech. This is why your view that the Founders only knew of "muskets" (never mind that American long rifles were the emerging technology during this time and was a drastic leap in arms technology), doesn't make sense nor is it logical.

It was for this very reason they utilized a broad term; arms; to encompass and recognize that what they have today will be different tomorrow. The same with using the term "the press"; to recognize and protect the citizen's Right and access to publish and disseminate their speech.

edit on 26-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

That is why they chose the word ARMS and not muskette's

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by neo96

 

Your forefathers knew nothing of automatic weapons or magazine clips or any other high powered rifle. Long gun ball and powder is what they legislated and what you have a right to. Have at it. Leave the big guns for the military .

do you really think they had no imagination? that they thought muskets were the best gun that could ever exist? no. they purposely wrote the second amendment using "the right to bear arms" because they knew that one day the government would become corrupt. every government eventually does. they wanted citizens armed and ready to combat tyranny.

leave the big guns for the military? really? do you know how many people have been killed under the orders of governments, including our own? HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, yes, lets give them the big guns, because they would never misuse them. oh, wait...

obama has killed around 200 children directly and assassinated quite a few american citizens without trial, but you want him to be in control of all the guns? craziness.

It's doubtful that any meaningful response will be given to the petition at all. I'm sure they will sidestep it the same way as the the petition for Texas to secede which still has not been addressed despite the fact it's been a few months now since it reached the threshold.

It'll never work.
Even if they got 200,000 signatures, it would quickly be dropped and swept under the White House rug.
Just like the Deport Pers Morgan petition.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by sandman441

 

There are many more on the other side that want gun control than on your side that dont. Deal with it like you had to deal with a black president. Things they are a changing. Good thing too. Too much of the old ways leads to old fashioned ideas and old fashioned idealogies. Next thing they will say girls cant wear pants to school again like when I was a kid.

I love the conviction of those that stand against freedom. We're right, you are wrong . . . no need to discuss. Deal with it. Spoken like a true facist.

Truth is the anti-gun lobby, while having influence in high places, is a small, yet very vocal, minority. Just because Biden, Obama, and Piers Morgan keep saying so . . . doesn't make it true, but that is the intention. Goebbels would be proud.

As someone else posted, the money doesn't lie and either does history regarding this progressive agenda. While she didn't commit treason, she is acting in dereliction of the oath she took and at the very least be removed from a prominent position in the senate (censured).

reply to post by infopost

aye, but Tx and others have been answered ... did you miss it ?

thehill.com...
The states included in the response are Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas. The Texas petition received over 125,000 signatures, more than any other.

as for this current petition, what a wasted effort when the real treasonists are Holder & Obama.
Holder for F&F ... selling guns to the 'criminals' directly.
Obama for suing Arizona.

way to pass the buck, guys

reply to post by solomons path

obvious karen is obvious. notice how the race card is played? we don't care that he's black, we care that he pushes horrible and dangerous agendas.

most gun violence in the u.s. originates in big cities that have extremely strict gun control. the u.k. has far more gun related crime than the u.s. does per capita. it's increased 89% since guns were banned.

reply to post by karen61560


They didn't know about the internet or cell phones either, so the "freedom of speech" doesn't apply to those, right?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by infopost

 

aye, but Tx and others have been answered ... did you miss it ?

I must have since the Texas petition had passed the 30 day deadline I had just assumed it was going to remain unanswered. The result was quite what I figured it would be and I'm sure the Feinstein petition will receive a similar result.

reply to post by infopost

personally, i doubt the Feinstein petition will get that far, let alone a response.

besides, there are established policies for dealing with such extremism and petitions aren't it.

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by neo96

 

Your forefathers knew nothing of automatic weapons or magazine clips or any other high powered rifle. Long gun ball and powder is what they legislated and what you have a right to. Have at it. Leave the big guns for the military .

This is exactly what they realized when the Bill of Rights was created and is the spirit behind the Second Amendment. The entire purpose of the citizens' right to bear arms is to prevent the arms from only being in the hands of the government. The forefathers were well aware of how a government can be overrun by tyrants and fortunately had the foresight to afford their descendants protection from future tyrannical governments of this country by ensuring us the right to bear arms. They need not define what those arms were since it is basic logic to assume firearms would evolve to be more powerful in the future.