Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Treason Alert: Dems Try to Move Gun Bill Forward Without Allowing Senators to Read It

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Some Dare Call It Treason


Originally posted by neo96

When this country was founded it was founded with the severe distrust of government which is the greatest enemy to the people when a government is for of and by itself, and does not represent the people,it is treason.

Obviously opinions vary, as they always will, and especially as to whether the government we have may be considered legitimate or not, but given the question of how to define treason, I'll stick with the Constitution on that.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 





Obviously opinions vary, as they always will, and especially as to whether the government we have may be considered legitimate or not, but given the question of how to define treason, I'll stick with the Constitution on that.


Yes they will, but I do have problems with that "get out of jail free card" the government is totally unaccountable.
edit on 12-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The High Price Of Freedom


Originally posted by neo96

Yes they will, but I do have problems with that "get out of jail free card" the government is totally unaccountable.

The government is only unaccountable if we the people don't hold them accountable. Our government will answer to us only as long as we question it, and not a moment longer.

Unfortunately, doing that takes time, interest, information, communication, cooperation, getting off one's ass and, more often than not, involves money in various forms. As the saying goes, "freedom isn't free".

Frankly, the system of government we have under the Constitution, though elegant in principle, isn't pretty in practice, and it has never been. One need only refer back to the many writings attending the circumstances under which the Constitution was adopted to see that. It's surprisingly well-documented in a variety of forms.

I'm not talking about the lofty "sound bites" people like to throw around, but the gritty details. The early years of our Republic were loaded with all sorts of scandals and skulduggery, and it went downhill from there.

The hard truth about our situation here in The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave is that it has always been a damn mess, a pile of lies, hypocrisy, delusions, corruption and just about every crime imaginable committed in the name of "freedom".

And still, gazing over it all as I am wont to do, I haven't seen anything better, real or imagined. To be sure, there are alternatives, and some -- such as the more common parliamentary forms in use in many nations -- may be better. Yet those forms are also rife with corruption, abuse, and oftentimes bald, unapologetic tyranny.

But getting back to the U.S., the grand irony of what so many self-described "Constitutionalists" profess is that it more often than not amounts to opposition to the Constitution itself, just indirectly expressed.

Love it or hate it, the government we have today is what the Constitution has given us. It can be changed, but the willingness of so many "patriots" to forgo the ballet box in favor of the bullet box is nothing more nor less than a de facto rejection of the Constitution.

Following up on that (as opposed to impotently griping about it in the traditional fashion) by actually waging war against the United States would, ironically enough, be actual treason.

If that's the idea, then let's at least be honest about it, rather than fruitlessly attempt to bury the truth under a pile of hollow and unconvincing rhetoric.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 





Love it or hate it, the government we have today is what the Constitution has given us. It can be changed, but the willingness of so many "patriots" to forgo the ballet box in favor of the bullet box is nothing more nor less than a de facto rejection of the Constitution


I don't buy that the government we have today is what politicians have "given" us the constitution has had little to do with that, because it is largely ignored.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The Worst Form Of Government


Originally posted by neo96

I don't buy that the government we have today is what politicians have "given" us the constitution has had little to do with that, because it is largely ignored.

Like I said, opinions vary. If I had my way, the Seventeenth Amendment would be repealed, the state governments would once again have the power to reign in the federal government, the majority of federal statutes and agencies would be abolished and the federal government would be a fraction of the size it is now.

Please don't get me wrong. I have no rosy, unrealistic view of what's going on with the U.S. Government. I think it represents, in many ways, the worst of us as Americans, is running wild, drunk with its own power and is leading us to ruin.

Alas, I don't have a better solution than reforming it through the means provided by voting. One thing all the would-be revolutionaries who fantasize about overthrowing the government by force have in common is that absolutely none of them represent me or anyone but themselves.

They also seem to hold the notion that a handful of "revolutionaries" running around shooting at people is somehow superior to what we have now, that their own misconceptions and delusions of grandeur are somehow more valid than the collective will of over 300 million people.

I sure as hell don't recommend counting on such people to cobble together a fair and just society from the ashes if they somehow were to succeed in their endeavors. And hey, I know there are lots of people who want that and maybe someday they will get their wish. That's their choice. Ironically, I'm not actually taking issue with that in itself (though I do disagree with it).

My beef here is with (and I'm trying not to use the "H-Word") using the Constitution to justify what is actually contempt for the Constitution. It comes up all the time in "gun control" debates and serves only to give strength to arguments in favor of more control.

I believe a much stronger case can be made when the debate actually focuses on the Constitution itself, and am confident that if there was more honesty and respect for the document, the discussion would be far more straightforward and much less polarized.

But then, that's apparently not a very popular belief, so here I must stand, shouting from the wilderness.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 





My beef here is with (and I'm trying not to use the "H-Word") using the Constitution to justify what is actually contempt for the Constitution. It comes up all the time in "gun control" debates and serves only to give strength to arguments in favor of more control.


So someone who thinks current government actions is treason is "hypocrisy". ?

Did anyone in this thread say those people be rounded up and shot?

Yeah there is hypocrisy here by the people who "can't be called treasonous" even tho they arming freedom fighter, and dictator alike in the ME, turn around and arm Drug Cartels in Mexico then turn around and "write laws" limiting and taking away the American citizens right to own firearms.

Ok fine it's not treason what should one call it then?



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Answering The Call


Originally posted by neo96

Ok fine it's not treason what should one call it then?

To the extent such activity is against the law, I call it "crime".

To the extent odious and unconscionable behavior that causes unjust and demonstrable harm to people is not illegal, I call that cause for appropriate legislation.

To the extent people will inevitably disagree on what "appropriate legislation" actually is (as I mentioned, I think most of it should be abolished), I call that a need for an agreed-upon framework for determining it.

And here in the Good Ole U.S.A. where I live, I call that framework "the Constitution of the United States of America".

Sheesh. Am I getting cheesy or what? Somebody quick, pass me a flag!


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 





To the extent such activity is against the law, I call it "crime".


But the people most effected by those laws have comiitted no such crime.




To the extent odious and unconscionable behavior that causes unjust and demonstrable harm to people is not illegal, I call that cause for appropriate legislation.


I call attempts to legislate behavior exercises in futility.




To the extent people will inevitably disagree on what "appropriate legislation" actually is (as I mentioned, I think most of it should be abolished), I call that a need for an agreed-upon framework for determining it.


We already have the framework in place used to cite how gun control legislation can't be called treason.




And here in the Good Ole U.S.A. where I live, I call that framework "the Constitution of the United States of America".


That framework was created to limit the government, and your next door neighbors power.




Sheesh. Am I getting cheesy or what? Somebody quick, pass me a flag!


How about a beer worth more, and has better mileage.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   


16 Republicans joined 2 Democrats in the majority. Apparently none of the three parts in the Bill ask for gun confiscation or a registry.

With that said, why sound an alert? Politics is a dirty game. Tricks and deception are part of the historical political process that continues to this day. Yet, like that story of the boy who called wolf too many times, it's good to see that some ATS'ers still rally to the cry of foul.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Vox Unpopulae


Originally posted by neo96

How about a beer worth more, and has better mileage.

As long as it's not American beer. I love my country, but I can't vouch for the beer.


Anyway, I fear all this has stirred my notorious penchant for wide-ranging, long-winded diatribes, and don't think it would be fair to expose readers to even more of it when most are no doubt here to consider the issue of the Senate quickly passing cloture on the Manchin-Toomey legislation.

The casual misapplication of the word "treason" is a hot button for me, and I should probably not -- as a friend of mine across the Pond might say -- "be so bloody Prussian about it."

On the topic itself, I'm disappointed our Congress is as dysfunctional as it is, don't think most of what the Democrats are propagandizing so fervently would make anyone safer, find the bungled, self-serving exploitation of a tragedy that could have brought the nation together disgusting, and would love nothing more than if the current snarl of state and federal laws surrounding firearms were to be reformed rationally, enforced properly and all maintained in conformance with the Constitution.

Unfortunately, as long as the "debate" amounts to little more than people lining up on opposite sides of an impenetrable wall shouting slogans at each other, that's not going to happen.

So we are left with yet another "wedge issue", another artifact of our bipartisan, bipolar political climate.

Such is the will of the people, whether it makes sense or not.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 




I'm disappointed our Congress is as dysfunctional as it is


As a student of American Politics, I blame the filibuster process. It has become a stall tactic.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Government Inaction


Originally posted by MysteriousHusky

As a student of American Politics, I blame the filibuster process. It has become a stall tactic.

In the days when Senators represented state governments, filibusters offered a means for states to leverage against being steamrolled by majorities of other states. Sometimes that was a good thing, sometimes not so good.

In this case, I think passing cloture is a way to dump the legislation since it's not going to get past the House anyway, and everyone knows it. 68 Senators voted for cloture, but 68 Senators are not going to vote for this bill.

Rushing it along allows supporters to tell their constituents "we tried" while allowing opponents to claim they let it sink or swim with the expectation it wasn't going to swim.

Frankly, this particular move is not a big deal really, and it seems to me the Democrats are starting to remember 1994 as they eye 2014, which is already going to be a tough midterm election for them if things don't go as planned with the economy, world events and healthcare.

Legislation that passes, angers gun owners and galvanizes support against the dwindling pool of "Conservative Democrats" isn't going to help the DNC, and they know it. But they also don't want to be seen as remaining silent in the face of so many mass shootings.

So the unspoken compromise is the President and his supporters publicly pushing for gun control, overreaching, being stonewalled by the mean old Republicans and implying that the way Forward is to vote Democrat in 2014.

Maybe it will work. The Democrats definitely run a much better public relations game than the (embarrassingly inept) Republicans these days.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I agree with Bioshock's definition of Treason and the ones we elect are the biggest Treasonous villians known to mankind, treason against their employers, the people and that any illegal criminal act that tries to disempower their employees IS HIGH TREASON and it IS NOT UP TO THEM TO DEFINE IT EVER. ITS UP TO ME AND US, EMPLOYER GROUP! So they put that in their pipe and smoke it, and if justice is done, in jail.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
If the bill is passed and conflict with the second amendment in any way the supreme court will take over, as it has done before two times in the last decade when states and governemnt has tried to push bills like that.

As usual the second amendment will stand.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Put a child following Harry Reid around and see how long it takes him to back down because not only are we talking about our adult rights but also the rights of our children in the future to protect themselves.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


So you're saying that our congressmen, who's job it is to read and introduce "legalese gobbly goop" should get a pass on this because it's difficult to understand?

If a congressmen needs a lawyer to decode their own work, they shouldn't be a congressmen.


Hear, hear!



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I really don't care who wants to debate semantics or preamble sentences. When it says "shall not be infringed" they meant just that period. No discussion, no debate, no prevarication - juist simply leave it alone!

Congress acoording to the constitution has no right to consider, debate, legislate or pass bills regarding a constitutional right at all.

If you anti-gunners want limits then there is a very specifically spelled out amendment process in the constitution to do so.

Otherwise bugger off!
edit on 12-4-2013 by Phoenix because: sp



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 



Originally posted by Phoenix
I really don't care who wants to debate semantics or preamble sentences. When it says "shall not be infringed" they meant just that period. No discussion, no debate, no prevarication - juist simply leave it alone!


It really is a simple as that. Period.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
The legal system: You hire a person who speaks a foreign language to explain to others who use that same language the legitimacy of your argument in a format designed to obfiscate facts as best they can.Usually the side with the most cash wins.
Some of these people got into stewardship of the country and immediately set to work to get their buddies hired for their team which is apparently now a cult that is self perpetuating after they created laws for it to become so and so they can get paid.
After YEARS of living in this cult they become ingrained against outsiders which is fine because they are in charge.
Each cult follows the Constitution as it's cult understands it and this is what we have.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


You know though, it is always the case, that folks end up having to get on one side or another on an issue like this.

The word "responsable" in an issue like this is nothing but a wedge. It means one thing to this side and another to that.

It is clear or should be by now that the forces driving for more hard gun restriction are anti-constitutional in nature and philosophy. They are simply proping up thier position on the backs of dead school children. They are propagandists, liers, 5th Column subversives as it fits their anti-constitutional servitude.





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join